News   Apr 26, 2024
 2.3K     4 
News   Apr 26, 2024
 551     0 
News   Apr 26, 2024
 1.2K     1 

Portlands Energy Centre

From the Star, by Hume:

Dim-bulb idea for port lands
Jul. 31, 2006. 08:37 AM
CHRISTOPHER HUME

The news on the waterfront has been so good for so long now, it's easy to forget the one thing that could mess up redevelopment, namely the plan to build a $700 million, 550 megawatt power plant on Unwin Ave. beside the old Hearn Generating Station.

This is land the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corp. has slated for a new residential neighbourhood complete with parks and public amenities.

The last thing the area needs is the enormous industrial fixture that Premier Dalton McGuinty is determined to build.

Many experts have tried to tell McGuinty and his cabinet that such a move must be part of a more comprehensive strategy that includes conservation and energy demand management, but so far the province has not taken that message seriously.

Even if Toronto weren't facing rolling blackouts by 2008, which is why the McGuinty government is in such a state, conservation must be a major element of any responsible energy policy.

Which is why the scheme is so misguided. Indeed, it's exactly the sort of thing we shouldn't be doing as a city and a province. And what makes the proposal especially appalling is that there are alternatives.

Experts tell us that just by using electricity intelligently, we could cut 8 per cent of provincial energy use. That may not sound like much, but consider that on a peak day we use about 25,000 megawatts and you can see that it translates into significant savings.

And this reduction could be increased to as much as one-third or more if aggressive energy-saving incentives were introduced.

Until then, the residents of Ontario will remain happily indifferent to the problem. So much for the Canadian image of ourselves as the world's nice guys. In fact, we are the worst per-capita polluters on the planet.

Ironically, one of the most important principles of waterfront regeneration is energy efficiency. Perhaps we won't achieve the same levels of sustainability as have the Swedes, for example, but the intention is to be much smarter than the Toronto norm.

However, despite opposition from Mayor David Miller, city council and the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corp., the province has refused to budge.

To add insult to injury, it will build this mega-plant not in the Hearn Generating Station, which now sits empty, but beside it. This is folly. But already trees are being cut down to make way for the construction.

If there's a quick way to kill a neighbourhood, even before it has been built, this could well be it. Who would want to invest — or live — in a development located next to a large industrial complex?

The Independent Electricity System Operator claims that Toronto will need an extra 250 megawatts of power by 2008, 500 megawatts by 2010.

And every summer, it seems, temperatures grow hotter and the demand for power grows with it. We find ourselves trapped in a deadly spiral: increased energy consumption leads to increased emissions, which leads to increased temperatures, which leads to increased energy consumption.

Rather than break that cycle, McGuinty's policy will simply perpetuate it. As well as the port lands proposal, the Liberal government will invest billions in nuclear plants.

And where is Toronto in all this? We don't have much to be proud of. When the calls go out to cut back, most of us ignore them. It's left for the big industrial energy users, the gun pointed squarely at their heads, to do the right thing.

If the waterfront is important to Toronto, it's because it represents our best chance to get it right. The docklands need all the help they can get. The power plant must go somewhere else, perhaps the east side of Leslie St. or the Ashbridge's Bay public utility campus.

Let's hope the light goes on before the electricity goes off.

AoD
 
This is land the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corp. has slated for a new residential neighbourhood complete with parks and public amenities.

That is an out-and-out untruth. The TWRCs plans specifically project no residences, parks, or public amenities on that land. It is to be part of the "Concrete Campus." Even a cursory read of their report would show this.
 
Pipeline plan for Portlands Energy Centre
Open house being held for proposed natural gas line

www.insidetoronto.com
DAVID NICKLE
Aug. 10, 2006

Riverdale residents will get a look next month at plans to build a new gas pipeline to supply fuel to the proposed Portlands Energy Centre.
Enbridge Gas Distribution is commissioning an environmental report on the 20-inch steel pipeline that would connect Enbridge's Station B Regulator Station on Eastern Avenue with the proposed site, next to the decommissioned Hearn Generating Station.

The open house takes place Sept. 6 at the Enoch Turner School House at 106 Trinity St. in the King/Parliament area from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m.

The meeting will be controversial.

Local Ward 30 Councillor Paula Fletcher (Toronto-Danforth) is opposed to the natural gas generation plant being constructed on the waterfront, and says that the pipeline ought to face a full environmental assessment before proceeding.

"We will be asking for a bump up of that environmental assessment based on the fact that the Portlands Energy Centre should have a bump-up as well," said Fletcher, who was bristling after hearing from provincial Environment Minister Laurel Broten, dismissing concerns that she had raised about the new power plant being located so near the proposed Expo 2015 site.

"I can assure you that I am aware of the proposal to stage Expo 2015 in the Toronto port lands," wrote Broten. "The proposed PEC is located within a larger area in the port lands designated as a 'regeneration area' in the Central Waterfont Secondary Plan. This designation encourages the redevelopment of the lands for a wide variety of uses."

Fletcher took little comfort from that.

"The province is lined up for the re-industrialization of the waterfront without even considering the use of an existing site (the Hearn)," said Fletcher.
----------------------------------------------
20-inch steel pipeline that would connect Enbridge's Station B Regulator Station on Eastern Avenue with the proposed site, next to the decommissioned Hearn Generating Station.

Does anybody know where on Eastern Ave?
 
Link to article

Portlands power plant imminent
By ROB GRANATSTEIN, CITY HALL BUREAU

Any hope Toronto politicians had of stopping the new $700-million power plant on the portlands are about to be zapped.

An announcement is expected as early as next week confirming the Portlands Energy Centre (PEC) has a deal with the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) to build a power plant next door to the shuttered Hearn power station.

Ted Gruetzner, spokesman for PEC, said a catchment pond is being built at the front of the site on the city's waterfront and some power lines are being moved in anticipation of construction.

"The expectation is pile-driving will start in September," he said.

The OPA said an announcement is imminent but wouldn't commit to the deal being announced next week.

PEC has committed to having the plant in service by June 1, 2008.

That's not what Mayor David Miller and area councillor Paula Fletcher want to hear. They both opposed industrializing the city's waterfront.

"Having two power plants beside each other on the waterfront is nonsensical," Miller said. "The province obviously is still intending to proceed but it's not done yet."

Miller hoped conservation could help ease the power shortfall facing the city.

The proposed power plant, a joint project by Ontario Power Generation and TransCanada Energy, is a 550-megawatt natural gas generator. Toronto Hydro had proposed putting a smaller generator inside the old Hearn plant but has since backed out, believing the PEC is a done deal.
 
Enbridge Gas to host a pipeline meeting in riding
DAVID NICKLE
08/18/06
www.insidetoronto.com

Local residents curious about how Enbridge Gas might construct a pipeline to fuel a proposed natural gas electricity plant in the port lands will be able to find out at a meeting a little closer to home.
The gas utility bowed to pressure from local MPP Peter Tabuns (Toronto-Danforth) to host the Sept. 6 meeting within the riding.

The meeting to discuss the environmental report on the new pipeline was originally slated to take place at the Enoch Turner School House, in the King and Parliament streets area, just west of the riding where both the plant and the pipeline will likely be constructed.

Tabuns, who represents the riding at Queen's Park for the New Democratic Party, accused Enbridge of trying to "play games" with the approval process.

"The line is in my riding and it's my constituents (who) are going to be affected by the whole project," Tabuns said. "They should be the ones with an opportunity to be at the open house and see what's on the table. It's just one way of disenfranchising the public to make sure they don't get a chance to be heard - or it's a lack of thoughtfulness. I don't know which it is."

Enbridges spokesperson Lisa McCarney-Warus said that the gas utility wants to make sure that public consultation is fulsome and fair. She confirmed the utility is looking for another location for the meeting.

"We received his feedback on an ongoing basis. We try to work with the people in the community and we've received his input and we're looking for an alternative," she said.

The pipeline itself will be running between Enbridges Station B pumping station at 405 Eastern Ave., down to the site of the generating station near the old Hearn generator, a distance of about 4.5 kilometres.

Enbridge has abandoned an earlier plan to construct a new pumping station at the corner of Leslie Street and Lake Shore Boulevard, she said.
 
From the Globe:

Power plant opposition gauged
Foes of the project concentrated near Portlands site, developer's poll shows

JAMES RUSK

A confidential poll of Torontonians' attitudes to the Portlands Energy Centre, which yesterday signed a 20-year contract with the Ontario Power Authority, found that opposition was confined to a small area of the city adjacent to its waterfront site, according an energy industry source.

The poll, conducted for TransCanada Energy Ltd., one of the partners with Ontario Power Generation in the project, found that the only places in the city where a majority opposed the project were the two downtown council wards, the source said.

PEC is building a 550-megawatt, gas-fired power plant adjacent to the closed Hearn power plant on the eastern waterfront. It is expected to cost $730-million to build and to begin supplying power in the summer of 2008.

Paula Fletcher, councillor for one of the two wards where the project is opposed, said she would continue to fight it, by trying to block any legal approval it may still need. "They are hell-bent on destroying the waterfront," she said in an interview.

But Councillor Case Ootes, who represents a ward adjacent to Ms. Fletcher's, said, "I really didn't get any feedback [on the project] from my constituents. From that, I conclude they are okay with this. I don't see why they shouldn't be."

And Steve Erwin, spokesman for Energy Minister Dwight Duncan, said, "We're pleased there hasn't been more opposition to the project." (Mr. Duncan's ministry ordered the OPA to sign the supply contract with PEC.)

"We're also pleased that the broader Toronto community seems to understand the need for Toronto to have the project go ahead to ensure the city's future supply needs."

The industry source noted the opinion poll -- which also found there was little knowledge of the project even where it was opposed -- was conducted at the height of a spring campaign, backed by Mayor David Miller, to build an alternative power project on the waterfront.

Mr. Miller told reporters he will do what he can to fight the plant, but has little legal power to stop it.

"The province has a law basically that removes this from municipal jurisdiction. It is their choice. I regret that very much," he said.

"The whole effort of the provincial government and the federal government is to revitalize Toronto's waterfront. We know why. It is a huge opportunity for job creation, job growth, green industry and to build a large power plant next door to another one doesn't make any sense."

Ms. Fletcher said terms of the contract with OPA are not public, and the province should publish them.

Tim Taylor, spokesman for the OPA, said the contract with Portlands "is a fairly standard contract for a peak plant," but its details are confidential commercial information.

The OPA guarantees PEC a reasonable rate of return for the project, Mr. Taylor said.

If sales at the going market rate for electricity do not provide the guaranteed rate of return, electricity purchasers make up the difference; if they produce a rate of return above the norm, the electricity consumer gets a rebate, he said.

PEC spokesman Ted Gruetzner said the contractor expects to start to pour the concrete base for the plant next month, and electricity production will begin by June 1, 2008.

AoD
 
And from the Star:

Power plant okayed despite protests
Mayor criticizes lakeside location
Ontario acted on blackout warning
Sep. 19, 2006. 01:00 AM
VANESSA LU
CITY HALL BUREAU CHIEF

Construction could start by early next summer on a natural-gas-driven power plant east of downtown Toronto, despite opposition from local politicians who say the project amounts to a "re-industrialization" of the city's waterfront.

The 550-megawatt project — less than half the size of the old coal-powered Lakeview generating plant in Mississauga that the province closed last year — got final approval when the Ontario Power Authority signed a 20-year contract yesterday with a partnership of Calgary-based TransCanada Corp. and the province's electricity company, Ontario Power Generation Inc.

The $730 million plant, called the Portland Energy Centre, will be built on Unwin Ave. next to the old coal- and gas-fired Hearn generating station, which was mothballed in 1983.

Starting in 2008, the new plant will provide enough power to serve a quarter of central Toronto's needs, TransCanada said.

While details of the contract are not disclosed, Portlands said there is a requirement to make sure that the costs of building the plant are covered.

The plant will be paid the spot market price for electricity, but if revenue exceeds the target, money is withheld — essentially a revenue cap.

Under the deal approved by the province, the plant will begin producing 340 megawatts of electricity on June 1, 2008 in conventional cycle mode using both gas and steam turbines.

Although the plant has been billed as a co-generation facility where the waste heat produced from the burning of gas will run boilers to produce more energy, it won't be ready to function in that mode until early 2009.

Ontario's Liberal government directed the Ontario Power Authority to strike a deal to build the plant after a warning from the independent Electricity System Operator that downtown Toronto could face rolling blackouts by the summer of 2008 unless new power supplies are added.

The Liberals bypassed a competing proposal from a partnership of Toronto Hydro and Baltimore-based Constellation Energy that proposed installing 291 megawatts of gas-fired generators inside the Hearn plant, which would have to be leased from OPG.

Energy Minister Donna Cansfield has said she opted for the Portlands proposal because of the need to get a project completed quickly, and because the Portlands site already has environmental approval.

But Councillor Paula Fletcher, (Ward 30, Toronto-Danforth), said too many details are unknown, including the operating costs.

"This is a deal with real questions," said Fletcher. "This is a plant that is the re-industrialization of the waterfront."

As well, she pointed out that environment approvals are for a co-generation plant, not for a simple gas-fired plant.

Toronto Mayor David Miller said the decision to build the plant is essentially outside the city's juridisction.

"The whole effort of the provincial government and the federal government is to revitalize Toronto's waterfront. It's a huge opportunity for job creation, job growth, green industries. And to build a large power plant next door to another one doesn't make any sense."

With files from Paul Moloney and John Spears

AoD
 
Aside from always talking about conservation, I am curious where the opponents to all of these projects expect their electricity to come from?
 
It's the location.

I wouldn't mind getting my power from more waste-to-energy incinerators (provided they were modern and clean), though I am not in favour of the PEC (and I don't live anywhere near there).
 
Just a question for those who may know: isn't it more environmentally sound to have the generator close to where the people live (as PEC proposes), as much less energy will be lost during transmission and the whole operation will therefore be a lot more efficient?
 
It seems looney to have new generating capacity be built on the waterfront. Why not somewhere like Downsview? The land PEC is on is rather valuable.
 
Remember that the plant is being built to serve peak demand periods... which means one thing: This plant is being built for the purpose of powering Air Conditioners.

Now where do I expect my power for my A/C to come from if not here? Well, counting that (according to the article) the inital output of the plant will be less than half the output of ONE of the four units at Darlington (and less than 1% of the province's capacity), I'm sure we could find somewhere else to produce this power.

While it is true that power is lost over transmission lines, our current power supply comes primarily from Durham Region, Niagara Region, and Bruce County. Somehow I don't think moving a project from the Harbourfront to Scarborough or North York is going to make much of a difference.
 
Peak demand for now, I suppose. It is not as if the plant will be turned off when demand is below peak periods.

The location, while an issue, allows the plant to feed into existing high voltage infrastructure. Plunking the plant in the middle of nowhere would probably require considerable cost to bring in the lines and the gas. And there would be the inevitable complaining that it is power for Toronto that is messing up someone else's real estate.
 
No no...the issue isn't total power in the Ontario grid. If that were the case, obviously it would be easier to build the plant out in Durham or Barrie or somewhere. The reason we need this plant close to downtown is that the transmission lines into the downtown area are extremely over-taxed. If the power were to come from outside the city, massive (and massively expensive) new transmission infrastructure would have to be rebuilt, and it still wouldn't give the reliability benefits of a plant right downtown, and there might also be issues with reactive power.

Still, I think that there are admittedly other ways of getting power to downtown Toronto. One option that was examined was a high voltage DC connection under the lake to Niagara, which would allow power from the falls and imports from New York to flow directly to downtown, bypassing the congestion in the Hamilton area and the GTA. Hydro One could also look into new technologies like superconducting cables in order to cram more power into an existing corridor. Still, it wouldn't have the same reliability benefits of the portlands site.

Actually, a bigger issue should perhaps be the corridors themselves. Why does Hydro insist on running high-tension power lines above ground in massive corridors through areas with very valuable real estate. Surely the value received from the sale of the land would make up for the cost of installing cables.
 
Actually, a bigger issue should perhaps be the corridors themselves. Why does Hydro insist on running high-tension power lines above ground in massive corridors through areas with very valuable real estate. Surely the value received from the sale of the land would make up for the cost of installing cables.

I don't think we're there yet.

The 2km tunnel underneath Front Street cost about $40M to install and doesn't have the same capacity as most of the surface corridors since it isn't really intended for transmission -- it's more for tweeking.

So, assume about $30M per km to run tunnel. I don't think the land is worth the cost for conversion BUT when a new corridor is built into the city I expect a large portion of it will be underground.
 

Back
Top