Getting back to long term projection for Ont electric demand:
Chiarelli stated 2013:
Nuclear generation will continue to be the backbone of Ontario’s supply, and we have confirmed our commitment to nuclear with the refurbishment of the Bruce and Darlington sites. Due to the strong supply situation, we have deferred the construction of new nuclear generating units.
Later in the same paper, his dep't states:
To add to your resume, you spend a lot of time insulting people who disagree with you on UT
(see below)
You need to chill out
I suggest you read back, Juan, and you attribute quotes out of context and some I didn't make. But that's fine, because Bob has made a point contrary to his persuasion: That the future planning of the needs of Ontario's electric grid and generation (or importation) is trending down, not up.
I've made a detailed and researched post on it, using Chiarelli's own words from a few years back and official QP policy, but I'll just let things simmer here a bit more and let others make the point, completely contrary to their intentions, that the Libs have it right (at least in their re-election platform) on Ontario's future electric needs. Their published research indicates otherwise.
As you were...
I'll post it when JJ returns and some of the other rational posters return.
Edit: Whoops, some of the Chiarelli stuff was left in this posting window. Consider it a sampling...
And as quoted by
@adma above:
Bob Burnhamthorpe said:
↑
I'm a proud progressive/urban *conservative*.
Well Bob, last time I voted in this nation, it was for the Conservatives. I don't wave flags though. Anyone so naive as to think there's salvation in joining your favourite team diving off a cliff is to be pitied.
And my father was an elected Conservative, but I digress...I say a pox on all of them. The one who should get elected is the one least bad.
Late Edit to Add:
Back on track, this is the point I was making, and JJ disagreeing with, albeit in a very rational and presented way. And then suddenly the conversation veered off course as per "subsidies" and "Tesla".
Whatever, I was projecting what is an accepted given in technical and informed circles:
Impacts of electric vehicle chargers on the power grid
Abstract:
While the number of internal combustion vehicles is stagnating, and is even expected to decrease in a few decades, the amount of electric vehicles is predicted to increase. Most of the electric cars are designed for daily urban use, thus in the near future, bigger cities might have some ten percentage of electric cars running on their streets during the day. And these vehicles need to be recharged in the evening or during night, so the electric vehicles, including the high performance electric cars, will interact with the power grid in this period. The impact of the charging process is predicted to be apparent on the distribution system, mostly on the low voltage grid, by influencing the network voltage profiles and the loading of the grid elements. As a practical issue we have chosen parts of the LV grid of Budapest, a city with almost two million inhabitants. If 20% of the cars is electric powered, then every fifth household has a car that has to be charged. In this paper we present the results of simulations conducted on the aforementioned grids with chargers placed at different places, using the DIgSILENT Power Factory software package. To get a better view of how electric cars' charging would affect the LV grid, we have run several load flow simulations on a large number of power grids. By statistically analyzing the obtained results, an overall picture can be acquired about the possible issues that electric car charging might have on the electric network of a large city.
[...]
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7180811/
If this is a pre-eminent issue in Hungary, then one assumes it will be here too...what I fail to see from *any* Ontario party at this time is *integrating the load* in a usable and stabilizing way in what is termed "ballasting" by using supply during hours of least demand.