News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.8K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5K     0 

SaugeenJunction

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
3,410
Reaction score
8,549
Interesting - and good to see.

Bruce currently has about 6,500MW of capacity, so this is a huge, huge increase. That's equal to about 6 new 800MW units.

It would also return Bruce to the position of the largest Nuclear plant in the world, with over 10,000MW of capacity.. nearly 30% more than the next largest, Kashiwazaki-Kariwa in Japan. It would also make it the 6th largest power generating facility of any kind on the planet..

Probably not going to see any new units open here until the late 2030's though, so don't get too excited.
 
Mods, please delete if not appropriate for UT. I figured I would make a thread since this a mega infrastructure project near-ish to Toronto.

Looks like the Province is planning a massive expansion of Bruce Power, adding about 4,800 megawatts of new capacity.

Announcement here:

Province Starts Pre-Development Work for New Nuclear Generation to Power Ontario’s Growth


Backgrounder also linked here.

Personally, I am very excited for this. Nuclear beats gas and coal every day.
I scanned the article but I didn't see how many reactors are contemplated, but maybe with new tech it would be four at 1,200 each. I see the two new reactors going online this year at the Vogtle site in Georgia are rated at 1250 MW each.
 
I can't say I'm at all excited by this.

While its certainly true that nuclear is cleaner than coal at the operating stage, the mining is every bit as bad, and disposal has no approved resolution.

I really can't fathom endorsing something that is an incomplete thought; if you don't know how to manage the entire life-cycle of what you create (and charge accordingly), to me that's irresponsible.

I would prefer we focused on lowering the consumption levels of the rich and upper-middle-class, and promoting energy efficiency.

We have yet to approve something as straight-forward as going to all LED streetlights, never mind some of the bigger savings that could be achieved, at far lower cost than expanded nuclear generation.

As apart from that I would strongly prefer to see much more dispersed, smaller-scale generation from a strategic perspective. Putting all eggs in one very large 'Bruce' basket seems incredibly unwise.

The fetish for having 'the largest in the world' I accord the same questioning look I give people who fetishize the tallest building, or the busiest/widest highway, why? What seems like an odd monument to ego rather than a sound use of dollars
merits no approbation, but rather lament and the need for a re-think.
 
I scanned the article but I didn't see how many reactors are contemplated, but maybe with new tech it would be four at 1,200 each. I see the two new reactors going online this year at the Vogtle site in Georgia are rated at 1250 MW each.

It sounds about right. I wonder if they are going to be using CANDUs (the ACR went nowhere).

AoD
 
As apart from that I would strongly prefer to see much more dispersed, smaller-scale generation from a strategic perspective. Putting all eggs in one very large 'Bruce' basket seems incredibly unwise.

The fetish for having 'the largest in the world' I accord the same questioning look I give people who fetishize the tallest building, or the busiest/widest highway, why? What seems like an odd monument to ego rather than a sound use of dollars
merits no approbation, but rather lament and the need for a re-think.

I don't think it will wind up being a scenario of being the largest or all the eggs in one basket. I strongly suspect the targeted completion of these reactors will coincide with the simultaneous decommissioning of several of the oldest units there, specifically those built in the 1970's.
 
I don't think it will wind up being a scenario of being the largest or all the eggs in one basket. I strongly suspect the targeted completion of these reactors will coincide with the simultaneous decommissioning of several of the oldest units there, specifically those built in the 1970's.

That is more reasonable; though not what being discussed above. I will delve into it further when I have a moment.
 
I can't say I'm at all excited by this.

While its certainly true that nuclear is cleaner than coal at the operating stage, the mining is every bit as bad, and disposal has no approved resolution.

I really can't fathom endorsing something that is an incomplete thought; if you don't know how to manage the entire life-cycle of what you create (and charge accordingly), to me that's irresponsible.

I would prefer we focused on lowering the consumption levels of the rich and upper-middle-class, and promoting energy efficiency.

We have yet to approve something as straight-forward as going to all LED streetlights, never mind some of the bigger savings that could be achieved, at far lower cost than expanded nuclear generation.

As apart from that I would strongly prefer to see much more dispersed, smaller-scale generation from a strategic perspective. Putting all eggs in one very large 'Bruce' basket seems incredibly unwise.

The fetish for having 'the largest in the world' I accord the same questioning look I give people who fetishize the tallest building, or the busiest/widest highway, why? What seems like an odd monument to ego rather than a sound use of dollars
merits no approbation, but rather lament and the need for a re-think.
I don't particularly care if it's the world's largest to be clear - just noting it as such.

Like it or not electricity consumption is going to skyrocket in the next decade or two, primarily from the shift to EVs and electric home heating.. We can't realistically meet that demand with Solar Power and Wind Turbines, especially for base loads. No matter how many street lights you convert to LED or energy efficiency upgrades you provide to houses, it can't be avoided. Physics get in the way.

It's good news as a whole - we are finally getting off of fossil fuels in a meaningful way, we just have to find ways to keep our extremely clean electric grid that way with a huge amount of additional demand.

Nuclear is a total necessity in a clean energy transition for Ontario, more or less. Using other renewable forms like solar or wind is not reliable enough for base loads without constructing massive energy storage facilities (which the press release already discusses how the Province is already heavily investing in).

Ultimately the Government, especially the PCs, are going to try to find the cheapest way to address rising energy demand. Demand reduction is of course always the cheapest way - and we are already seeing big efforts for that which I am sure will continue. As more and more houses switch to EVs and heat pumps however.. you can't get around needing some level of baseload power demand increase.

as for the eggs in the basket idea.. I can definitely see supporting a new nuclear facility somewhere... Pick an old coal facility and re-use it is probably the best idea due to existing transmission infrastructure.. Nanticoke anyone?

I suspect they went with Bruce as it will be cheaper to just do it somewhere which already has the infrastructure and expertise to support nuclear.
 
Good news. Nuclear is the best option for clean energy for us without steady sunlight or wind. Like others have said, electricity use will skyrocket with the shift to decarbonized transportation and manufacturing. We need all the low CO2 juice we can get.
 
I don't particularly care if it's the world's largest to be clear - just noting it as such.

Like it or not electricity consumption is going to skyrocket in the next decade or two, primarily from the shift to EVs and electric home heating.. We can't realistically meet that demand with Solar Power and Wind Turbines, especially for base loads. No matter how many street lights you convert to LED or energy efficiency upgrades you provide to houses, it can't be avoided. Physics get in the way.

I don't recall suggesting we convert the entire power grid to solar and wind. You do have a propensity for running w/statements up to and past their logical extreme.

***

First off, on efficiency, where do you suppose Canada ranks today? Answer ~ 9th highest per capita consumption in the world. (one above the U.S.)

Now, we do have that need to heat in winter, and a/c in the summer at least in the south. So its not fair to compare us to substantially more temperate places.

But how do we compare with the Scandinavian nations?

Norway consumes 7% less than us.
Finland 15% less
Sweden 29% less
Denmark 57% less

Values from 2013

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita

So I believe physics does permit a material reduction in energy use per capita.

****

Second, I didn't suggest shuttering all existing nuclear, even if I would not have chosen to build this particular version of it at the time; I expressed a lack of enthusiasm for further expanding it.

****

Third, we have the option of drawing more hydro power from Quebec, low-risk, clean, already being produced, and they are set to sell their surplus to the Americans, because we turned them down (they asked Ontario if we wanted it first) .

****

Fourth, I think you underestimate co-generation and heat-exchange opportunities. Enwave shows the way, but there are other variations using the heat produced by waste water/sewers, as well as just in-building modifications and of course geo-thermal.
 
I wonder if we have wrung everything out of conservation yet. I just visited an industrial site that had only just switched to LED lighting. I was a bit surprised.... but maybe the grants and incentives don't fit all needs or haven't saturated the target population.

Similarly, I would not rule out solar etc with much more investment in storage. And cogen.

Is it really fair to blame the rich? It has been a long time since air conditioning passed heating and cooking as the driver of peak loads, and I would argue that AC ought to be an equaliser and not a luxury item. Especially with climate changing. So I'm wondering what the rich are doing that sucks up extra power?

I wonder just how stringent the energy minimization requirements of all our new housing construction will be. Maybe if we discouraged 6,000 sq ft monster homes and instead put three families in the same building space as a triplex....the per capita energy required might look better. Or imposed Danish standards on all new construction? (Developers would likely wail)

Bottom line, while I also am reluctant to see a bigger nuclear footprint, it may just have to be.... in which case I would want to see much more advocacy and intrusive challenges and inquiry about safety practices and technical safeguards, rather than an anti-nuke movement trying to "stop them in their tracks".

I do wonder about the wisdom of putting more nukes in a single location, and how does that impact available transmission?

- Paul
 
Last edited:
Is it really fair to blame the rich? It has been a long time since air conditioning passed heating and cooking as the driver of peak loads, and I would argue that AC ought to be an equaliser and not a luxury item. Especially with climate changing.

I wasn't associating heat and a/c with being rich, LOL

At least not anymore so that people w/grossly over sized homes.

When I said 'limiting consumption', my first thought was of goods and services from cars to clothes to electronics, the more you buy, the more that had be produced, with electricity.

My thought here was a general increase in the sales tax, we're 2 points less than Quebec or the Maritimes (and our historic number here as well), and a few more points below much of Europe.

I was also thinking ways to limit conspicuous consumption. Absolute caps on home size, absolute limits on the number of cars you can register and garage capacity you can build.

Here I'm not taking aim at middle-class aspirations, I'm thinking of a 5,000ft2 limit on house-size above grade. I'm thinking of a limit of 3 cars per person. To address the most gratuitous buying.

***

That said, there is a not unreasonable idea in my head that could differentiate power rates, based on giving a lower rate for all per person consumption at or below the median, and a higher rate for consumption greater than the median (on that portion of one's energy bill)


I wonder just how stringent the energy minimization requirements of all our new housing construction will be. Maybe if we discouraged 6,000 sq ft monster homes and instead put three families in the same building space as a triplex....the per capita energy required might fall.

Right in line w/my thinking.

Bottom line, while I also am reluctant to see a bigger nuclear footprint, it may just have to be.... in which case I would want to see much more advocacy and intrusive challenges and inquiry about safety practices and technical safeguards, rather than an anti-nuke movement trying to "stop them in their tracks".

I do wonder about the wisdom of putting more nukes in a single location, and how does that impact available transmission?

- Paul

Again, completely in line w/my thinking. I'm not an anti-nuke frother, its simply not my first choice, and if we pursue it, I'd still like to see it more geographically dispersed in the name of network redundancy.
 
Last edited:
I don't recall suggesting we convert the entire power grid to solar and wind. You do have a propensity for running w/statements up to and past their logical extreme.

***

First off, on efficiency, where do you suppose Canada ranks today? Answer ~ 9th highest per capita consumption in the world. (one above the U.S.)

Now, we do have that need to heat in winter, and a/c in the summer at least in the south. So its not fair to compare us to substantially more temperate places.

But how do we compare with the Scandinavian nations?

Norway consumes 7% less than us.
Finland 15% less
Sweden 29% less
Denmark 57% less

Values from 2013

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita

So I believe physics does permit a material reduction in energy use per capita.

****

Second, I didn't suggest shuttering all existing nuclear, even if I would not have chosen to build this particular version of it at the time; I expressed a lack of enthusiasm for further expanding it.

****

Third, we have the option of drawing more hydro power from Quebec, low-risk, clean, already being produced, and they are set to sell their surplus to the Americans, because we turned them down (they asked Ontario if we wanted it first) .

****

Fourth, I think you underestimate co-generation and heat-exchange opportunities. Enwave shows the way, but there are other variations using the heat produced by waste water/sewers, as well as just in-building modifications and of course geo-thermal.
In case it wasn't clear, I wasn't trying to conflate you as pushing for our entire grid to run on Solar and Wind, I'm not sure where you got that impression. I was intending to mean that the huge wall of electricity demand coming from electrification can't reasonably be addressed only through demand reduction and solar / wind projects.

Indeed other jurisdictions use a lot less power, but we have to frame this on how these other jurisdiction's economies work and where electricity demand is coming from. Countries like Denmark as far as I am aware do not have a large manufacturing presence, which is what drives Ontario's power consumption.

We also have to be realistic - Can we reasonably expect Ontario to see a 57% decrease in energy consumption in the next decade or two? Not really. Keep pushing efficiency for sure, but ultimately we are more than likely going to be looking at net demand increases on the grid no matter what you do.

And good luck with bans on home sizes and car ownership numbers - LOL. I don't think any western nation has such egregious limitations on personal freedom like consumption limits.



No doubt demand reduction, solar, and wind have a big part to play in the electrification of the economy - It's just not really realistic to address all of the future wave of electric demand through those methods. Ultimately the Province needs to address 46,000MW of demand growth in the next 30 years - yea, a lot of it can come from Solar, a lot from demand reduction - but at that scale even a massive nuclear project like a 4,800MW plant is going to be only 10% of the required solution. It's a total wall of demand flying at the province at a very fast pace and it needs every solution in the book to address it in an emissions-free way.
 
Last edited:
We will still need more electricity generation. Transitioning from natural gas. Adding heat pumps, electrifying hot water heaters, electric cars, electric trains.


The Canadian Climate Institute: We need 1.6-2.1x more electricity generation by 2050. We'll need 2.2x-3.4x installed capacity by 2050. We still need more electricity generation.

NIMBYs, it's going to be hard to build another big nuclear plant elsewhere. I think there's also benefits of scale as you can use high voltage power lines that are more efficient.
 
Indeed other jurisdictions use a lot less power, but we have to frame this on how these other jurisdiction's economies work and where electricity demand is coming from. Countries like Denmark as far as I am aware do not have a large manufacturing presence, which is what drives Ontario's power consumption.

Denmark's electricity consumption is 26% by Industry


Ontario's electricity consumption is 16% by Industry


We also have to be realistic - Can we reasonably expect Ontario to see a 57% decrease in energy consumption in the next decade or two? Not really. Keep pushing efficiency for sure, but ultimately we are more than likely going to be looking at net demand increases on the grid no matter what you do.
That depends on population growth, lifestyle and transportation choices. Its not a given.

And good luck with bans on home sizes and car ownership numbers - LOL. I don't think any western nation has such egregious limitations on personal freedom like consumption limits.

Incorrect again........ Far too many assumptions, not enough research.

British Columbia limits home size in its Agricultural zone (answer to the Greenbelt) - 500m2 / 5,381ft2


While I can't find a good western example on cars at first blush, China has such policies in 4 major cities:


No doubt demand reduction, solar, and wind have a big part to play in the electrification of the economy - It's just not really realistic to address all of the future wave of electric demand through those methods. Ultimately the Province needs to address 46,000MW of demand growth in the next 30 years - yea, a lot of it can come from Solar, a lot from demand reduction - but at that scale even a massive nuclear project like a 4,800MW plant is going to be only 10% of the required solution. It's a total wall of demand flying at the province at a very fast pace and it needs every solution in the book to address it in an emissions-free way.

Those projections assume levels of population growth we do not need to choose, and make several other questionable assumptions.
 

Back
Top