Hydro plans

[building babel]

Until such time as I can install a massive wind turbine atop my little Riverdale semi, or rig up a huge hamster wheel in the basement that feeds into the power grid, I hereby vow to do my bit to save the world by reducing my hydro use as much as possible.

About six years ago I went over to an off-peak metered billing system ( which, apparently, Toronto Hydro no longer offers ), and have just converted my hot water tank to metered reading; next, I'll cut back from a 60 gallon to a 40 gallon tank. My water usage is also metered: I rarely bathe, as UTGA members will attest, and save all my used dishwater to irrigate the rhubarb, blackcurrant, gooseberry and redcurrant bushes in the back garden - from which I make Babel's Traditional All Organic Pesticide Free Male Preserves.

 

[afransen TO]

Well, Toronto Hydro will be offering it again soon. That's why they set up a municipal wifi network.

 

[building babel]

The nice Hydro lady just told me, much to my surprise, that renting a 40 gallon tank is only about 50 cents a month cheaper than renting a 60 gallon.

 

[bizorky]

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.

The first part of your statement is meaningless without the proper qualifiers. The second part of your sentence is faulty reasoning and an exhibition of excessive emotional response when you accuse me of calling someone stupid when I have not done so. Do you actually know all the present day facts concerning the German electricity system? Do you know how much they import? How much oil do they burn for electricity? How much brown coal? Are you aware of what their baseload demand is? Beyond wind power, do you know what they are looking to invest in for additional sources of electricity? Are you certain that they produce 19% of their electrical needs from wind everyday right now? If not, then it is you who is being disingenuous as it is you who is asserting a commanding knowledge of the situation.

If you want to talk about Ontario's hydro plans, then talk about Ontario. I could easily point to France, which generates 80% of its electricity from nuclear.

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

Well that's just good for you, isn't it? Is Ontario to base power policy, land use management and environmental considerations on your thoughts of what looks good? There already have been a number of complaints and concerns recorded concerning the building of large windmill structures, both in settled areas and out in more remote regions. Maybe you don't take these seriously, but other people have - and will continue to do so.

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.

Again, to remind you of what I have said, I think there is a place for wind power, but not as a baseload energy source. That should suggest to you that I am not against wind power. I have never said I am against wind power. So that would mean there is nothing wrong, in my opinion, in utilizing it in certain areas where it makes the most sense. Because of transmission costs, it can be utilized for local demands that best correspond to wind forecasts or availability, so there is nothing wrong with building wind towers in or around those areas. Building wind towers and power infrastructure way out in north-central Ontario is not a terribly viable option because it represents a large investment for an inconsistent energy source. The cost of that electricity would be very high for the reasons that I have already mentioned. However, that is where a significant portion of the wind resources are.

As I've said, this can be overcome.

Yeah, but you've neglected to explain how. The real answer is to build a robust electrical power system based on a number of sources. That is what is already in place. That is what the present planning is continuing to aim for.

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.

Again, Germany is not Ontario. The availability of certain resources can differ significantly. For example, Quebec is right next door to us, but has hydro power potential that we simply don't have. Open ocean generally has more steady winds occuring, and we don't have that, but Germany and Quebec do. You can't base renewable energy resources on what others have if you don't have the same thing. Quebec has huge hydro resources in the northern portion of its territory, but the huge distances means that almost half the potential power is lost in transmission. Hydro is far more reliable than wind power, so that transmission loss is not a problem with respect to hydro power. It would be with wind in remote regions.

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.

Actually, the main reason that Ontario is looking to solve its electricity problems quickly is because the government has chosen to eliminate coal as an option. This represents a loss of over 6,500MW, which is roughly almost a quarter of the generating capacity of the province, and an important baseload energy supply. At the same time, there has been a failure to continually update the system in terms of generation and improved transmission. These are, to a very large degree, political failures, and represent nothing more than neglect in paying attention to the responsibilities of managing publically owned assets.

 

[rbtaylor]

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

This is mostly the provinces fault. Regulations require power plants to be inspected when they've been shut-down. There are very few nuclear inspectors in Ontario simply because most of the Nuclear plants are 80 to 95% reliable, meaning they are taken offline for maintenance only a few days of the year and almost always scheduled.

Coal/Gas plants have far more inspectors available since they tend to go online/offline on a frequent basis.

If the province had additional inspectors on-hand, the restart time would have been 24 to 48 hours instead of a week. Bruce Nuclear didn't go offline (went off grid but didn't stop generating) and was used as a supply to restart a large number of other supplies in Ontario.

My uncle is a green suit at Bruce Nuclear.

 

[afransen TO]

The second part of your sentence is faulty reasoning and an exhibition of excessive emotional response when you accuse me of calling someone stupid when I have not done so.

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

This to me says that you are calling into question the reasonableness of Germany's planned deployment of wind power. I don't think it is reasonable to call it into question. They have a plan, the means, and they are well on their way. This is not an emotional response. I'm annoyed that you're using such a cheap rhetorical ploy.

Are you certain that they produce 19% of their electrical needs from wind everyday right now?

wikipedia
"Germany's Schleswig-Holstein province generates 35% of its power with wind turbines."
Schleswig-Holstein has a population of about 2.8 million. You were arguing that a reasonable share of power was in the 2-4% range. Germany as a whole is on track to be producing over 10% of its electrical needs from wind by 2010. Frankly, I'm not sure why you seem to think the technology is so unproven

.

Well that's just good for you, isn't it? Is Ontario to base power policy, land use management and environmental considerations on your thoughts of what looks good? There already have been a number of complaints and concerns recorded concerning the building of large windmill structures, both in settled areas and out in more remote regions. Maybe you don't take these seriously, but other people have - and will continue to do so.

I'm not even sure what you're getting at. Some people worry that they are ugly. A more important concern is the noise that they generate. For this reason, you'd want turbines to be set somewhat away from residential areas. I'm not the only one who doesn't consider windmills ugly. I'm not dictating Ontario's energy policy, I'm merely disagreeing with your implicit assertion that they are unsightly. If you're allowed to say they are unsightly, I'm allowed to say they're not.

Btw, have you ever seen Nanticoke up close?

Again, to remind you of what I have said, I think there is a place for wind power, but not as a baseload energy source.

Perhaps. But it can compose a much larger share of our energy production than you suggest. I'm not disagreeing that there will continue to be a place in Ontario for hydroelectric, nuclear and gas generating facilities.

Building wind towers and power infrastructure way out in north-central Ontario is not a terribly viable option

Sure. I wasn't really suggesting we do that, but since you mentioned it, I agree with you.

However, that is where a significant portion of the wind resources are.

There's plenty in Southern Ontario.

Yeah, but you've neglected to explain how.

There's numerous ways of storing electricity chemically for later use, either using flow batteries or hydrogen.

Open ocean generally has more steady winds occuring, and we don't have that, but Germany and Quebec do.

Freshwater lakes are actually better than ocean. Oceans are corrosive. Like I've said before, we have lots of freshwater lakes, and they are very windy. Looks at a wind map of Ontario, like the one I provided. Ontario has at least as much wind potential as Germany, and most of it is very accessible to Southern Ontario.

Actually, the main reason that Ontario is looking to solve its electricity problems quickly is because the government has chosen to eliminate coal as an option. This represents a loss of over 6,500MW, which is roughly almost a quarter of the generating capacity of the province, and an important baseload energy supply. At the same time, there has been a failure to continually update the system in terms of generation and improved transmission. These are, to a very large degree, political failures, and represent nothing more than neglect in paying attention to the responsibilities of managing publically owned assets.

No disagreement here. But this isn't an argument in favour of nuclear over wind. Ontario has decided to replace a large portion of its capacity. Great.

 

[rbtaylor]

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.

Actually, depending on the day they've achieved 80% or 2% In short, they still build enough nuclear, gas, coal, etc. to cover 98% of their load but don't turn them on as much as they used to.

 

[bizorky]

"Germany's Schleswig-Holstein province generates 35% of its power with wind turbines."
Schleswig-Holstein has a population of about 2.8 million. You were arguing that a reasonable share of power was in the 2-4% range. Germany as a whole is on track to be producing over 10% of its electrical needs from wind by 2010. Frankly, I'm not sure why you seem to think the technology is so unproven

Schleswig-Holstein is linked to other parts of Germany, no? So when the wind isn't blowing, how do they make up for having no electricity? Capacity from sources other than wind? We can assume that they derive a maximum of 35% from wind when it is at peak efficiency. When the wind is not blowing at all, we can assume they derive 0%.

When we think about Germany as a whole, we can pose a idealized scenario that when wind power is running at full capacity, it is capable of generating 10% of the needed electricity. Since the wind is not blowing all the time everywhere, we can assume that it won't be at 10% all the time. There is always excess generating capacity built into a robust electricity system, so the loss of generation from wind will be made up from dependable baseload sources. It is not as simple as saying wind will continuously generate some specific percentage of electrical power all the time. Wind power is variable. When it is available, one takes advantage of it.

I'm not even sure what you're getting at. Some people worry that they are ugly. A more important concern is the noise that they generate. For this reason, you'd want turbines to be set somewhat away from residential areas. I'm not the only one who doesn't consider windmills ugly. I'm not dictating Ontario's energy policy, I'm merely disagreeing with your implicit assertion that they are unsightly. If you're allowed to say they are unsightly, I'm allowed to say they're not.

What I am getting at is that the numbers of towers required for your plan would take up considerable land space (or water space), and wind mills do have some negative impacts - such as noise. These issues will have to be addressed. If wind power is to be efficient on a large scale then wind mills have to be built as wind farms in order to maximize infrastructure efficiency. To generate the same electricity as a medium-sized conventional generator, wind farms need hundreds of times the space as a conventional generator (thousands of hectares). Putting them out on the shores of lakes may have an impact on the local ecosystem that are not well understood or appreciated at this point. And good for you that you don't consider windmills ugly. I don't find them ugly, either. But other people do.

And yes, I've seen Nanticoke close up. It's not pretty, but it doesn't take up thousands of hectares of land surface, either.

Perhaps. But it can compose a much larger share of our energy production than you suggest. I'm not disagreeing that there will continue to be a place in Ontario for hydroelectric, nuclear and gas generating facilities.

Yes, it could compose a larger share of energy production, but only when running at peak performance. Unless the wind can be produced on demand, wind power only produces electricity when wind is available. That suggests that such a source is not responsive to sudden demands. To be blunt, five hundred wind mills and no wind means no electricity.

There's numerous ways of storing electricity chemically for later use, either using flow batteries or hydrogen.

And these are nowhere near as efficient as sending current directly to an appliance. Advances in technology may change this in the future, of course.

Freshwater lakes are actually better than ocean. Oceans are corrosive. Like I've said before, we have lots of freshwater lakes, and they are very windy. Looks at a wind map of Ontario, like the one I provided. Ontario has at least as much wind potential as Germany, and most of it is very accessible to Southern Ontario.

Then you've identified a problem for Germany's big plans. As for Ontario, the same problem of land use (water in this case) comes up. We are talking about significant areas for placing all these wind mills.

But this isn't an argument in favour of nuclear over wind.

But you alluded to this in the first two sentences of your first post.

 

[afransen TO]

We can assume that they deri<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>ve a maximum of 35% from wind when it is at peak efficiency. When the wind is not blowing at all, we can assume they de

<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->

We could assume that, but I don't think that's the case. Typically, turbines produce something in the neighbourhood of 10-30% of their rated capacity on average. I imagine that the 35% figure is the average output, which is also probably a more reasonable assumption. Also, the probability of zero wind everywhere in an area the size of, say, southern Ontario is pretty close to zero.

"And these are nowhere near as efficient as sending current directly to an appliance. Advances in technology may change this in the future, of course."

Of course, and this technology is also being looked at for shifting energy production from nuclear plants that is essentially wasted off-peak and releasing it during peak demand periods. It's actually not that inefficient. Of [/quote]course, it'd be wonderful if we had constant demand round the clock...

Nonetheless, as the hydrogen economy emerges, we will require fairly large amounts of hydrogen. It's optimal to produce it when energy prices are low (ie, when the wind is blowing). It can then later be used for vehicular transportation, or cogeneration electricity/heating. These aren't wacky, out-there ideas...

Then you've identified a problem for Germany's big plans.

I suppose. I think you're deliberately taking the wrong point away from that. Germany can make it work in conditions worse than ours.

 

[bizorky]

Nonetheless, as the hydrogen economy emerges, we will require fairly large amounts of hydrogen.

Which will require a huge amount of cheap electricity in order to isolate that hydrogen. Hydrogen will have to competitive with its own source energy from the electrical grid, otherwise we are better off just sending that current directly to the appliance. Not only will production be costly, but the storage and transportation of hydrogen are going to be expensive and more energy intensive than other sources of energy.

 

[doady]

Not only will production be costly, but the storage and transportation of hydrogen are going to be expensive and more energy intensive than other sources of energy.

Hydrogen is not a source of energy, period.

 

[bizorky]

double post.

hey, it's friday.

 

[bizorky]

Accurately speaking, it is being referred to here as a (potential) carrier of energy.

 

[Mark Dowling]

First some figures
Germany: 357,000sqkm - 82m people
Ontario: 1.08m sqkm total - 12.6m people

While Germany is not developing new nukes they are interconnected with France which is heavily nuclear.

Not only is Ontario far more imbalanced from a population standpoint but most of the available extra energy is in N Ont. and Manitoba, far from the need for it in the Horseshoe.

There is a proposal to build a transmission line from Manitoba to S Ontario but Ontario can't even built a much shorter line from Bruce nuclear and wind plants within the timeframe they contracted for, and is now trying to accommodate the nuclear in the existing line - or face heavy penalties - which means the wind projects will be delayed

As for storage - I prefer pumped water to hydrogen - for one thing water doesn't usually blow up. Turlough Hill Station in Ireland has been around a long time.

 

[AlchemisTO]

For those interested in generating (pun) more interest and awareness in wind power, I just signed up for bullfrog power, so my electricity comes from wind (80%) and low-impact hydro (20%).

It costs 9.1 cents/kWh instead of the usual 5.5, but I calculated that will amount to an extra $9 on my hydro bill every 2 months, and it's all coming from green sources.