News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.3K     0 

afransen said:
Not sure how they treat wind and solar in that chart. They typically have a pretty low capacity factor (how much power they actually produce vs their theoretical rated 'nameplate' capacity) due to intermittency of weather conditions. Similarly, gas would tend to have pretty low utilization owing to its role as a provider of peak power.
Click to expand...

As far as Ontario* supply planning goes, you pretend they don't exist. Instead, you would chart the energy storage capacity and rely exclusively on stored energy. The conceptual diagram would be Wind/Solar -> Storage -> Customer. Building out storage needs to consider wind/solar generation over a longer period of time to ensure the storage doesn't run empty, but for customer supply planning purposes just ignore those uncontrolled sources entirely.

Ford's plan also seems to treat Nuclear as a peaker plant via battery storage too, using excess overnight nuclear generation to recharge battery banks for peak use.

* Ontario Wind and Solar are not reliable. Some locations with less solar intensity variation (thunderstorms, snow cover, forest fire smoke, etc.) or wind variation can rely on a minimum output at any specific part of the day. UK Offshore wind can safely say that on August 12th @ 5pm their wind will provide at least 4GW for customer use; Ontario Wind can't do that.
 
Last edited:
I suspect that in addition to chemical battery storage, we'll start to see heat 'batteries' located large industrial process heat users, and large buildings, and hydrogen electrolysis that is dispatchable as load to soak up excess renewables that are otherwise curtailed. There is a lot of work currently on scaling up electrolyzers and reduce their capital cost. As that develops, hydrogen production will be bounded by cheap energy availability.
 
Not explicitly relevant to this project, but Quebec is considering restarting Gentilly-2 to deal with an anticipated energy crunch, after it was shut down in 2012. This reactor is a 675MW CANDU-6 reactor and only contributed to approximately 2% of Quebec’s total generation capacity when it was in operation.

Shows that buying hydropower from Quebec as an alternative to nuclear expansion in Ontario is not really a viable solution anymore if Quebec themselves are also going to face an energy crunch. I think it’s pretty likely that we will also see an SMR announced here like at Point Lepreau and Darlington if the restart goes through.
 
Last edited:
ericmacm said:
Not explicitly relevant to this project, but Quebec is considering restarting Gentilly-2 to deal with an anticipated energy crunch, after it was shut down in 2012. This reactor is a 675MW CANDU-6 reactor and only contributed to approximately 2% of Quebec’s total generation capacity when it was in operation.

Shows that buying hydropower from Quebec as an alternative to nuclear expansion in Ontario is not really a viable solution anymore if Quebec themselves are also going to face an energy crunch. I think it’s pretty likely that we will also see an SMR announced here like at Point Lepreau and Darlington if the restart goes through.
Click to expand...
I would imagine Quebec is caught in a bit of a crunch. They clearly have enough generating capacity to satisfy their domestic needs (and probably well into the future) but it is tied up in export contracts that they need to pay their long-term debt which they incurred building said capacity.
 
london.ctvnews.ca

Canada vows to triple nuclear power production by 2050

The nuclear renaissance is in full effect as Canada joins an international movement to dramatically increase the amount of nuclear energy produced across the country.
london.ctvnews.ca london.ctvnews.ca

Canada vows to triple nuclear power production by 2050​

“This is very significant. Canada is joining 22 countries in signing a pledge to triple its nuclear capacity by 2050,” said Chris Keefer, co-founder of Canadians for Nuclear Energy.
The change in philosophy and energy policy comes down to reliability, said Keefer. As clean and green as wind and solar energy is, it’s simply not as reliable on its own as nuclear energy is.
Others suggest a combination of wind, solar, battery storage, and Quebec’s hydroelectric production would be a much better option for Ontario and large parts of Canada, than more nuclear reactors, which currently meets 15 per cent of the country’s electricity needs.
If Canada’s nuclear pledge to triple production is to come true, Ontario will lead the way, with 18 of Canada’s 19 nuclear reactors currently in operation, and plans for more.
“We are looking towards an announcement, I think later this month, that the government will proceed with refurbishing most of the reactors at Pickering. There is 4800 megawatts of new nuclear capacity being planned at Bruce Power. We’ve got the Small Modular Reactors going in at Darlington, but there is a role right across the country,” said Keefer.
 
I wonder what the wind and/or solar footprint would look like to replace Ontario's 83 Twh of nuclear.
 
lenaitch said:
I wonder what the wind and/or solar footprint would look like to replace Ontario's 83 Twh of nuclear.
Click to expand...
Not just capacity, but reliability I.e. the power is there to be delivered when called upon. It might be interesting to look at what it would take to replace the gas fired plants first - possibly also including energy storage In the mix. I am not an expert but have visions of a lot of clear cutting to instal solar farms. .
 
I'd assume we'd hear about A1 and A4 refurbishment before we'd hear about A2 and A3, at best they'd all be lumped in together. My guess is B refurb is between $15-20 billion, if Darlington was $12.6 Billion in 2016 dollars this will definitely be much more.
Also if I'm playing guessing games, I'm going to guess a new build at Bruce will be around $50-60 Billion, considering Vogtle in Georgia is coming in around $31 Billion US.
 
Last edited:
Note it's going to increase Ontario's GDP by $19.4B, that's not the budget.

CBC: The news release says the refurbishment will take 11 years, create about 11,000 jobs per year and increase Ontario's GDP by $19.4 billion, but it does not state the project's total budget.
Click to expand...
 
From the Globe and Mail:
Another government official said the province has approved a $2-billion budget for Ontario Power Generation, the plant’s owner, to complete the necessary engineering and design work and order crucial components, which can require years to manufacture.
Click to expand...
OPG’s current licence for Pickering B allows its reactors to operate only to the end of this year. OPG has applied to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, which regulates the industry, for permission to operate them until late 2026.
Click to expand...
Refurbishment involves replacing major components to extend reactors’ operating lives by 30 years. Subo Sinnathamby, OPG’s chief projects officer, told The Globe earlier this month that, if the project were approved, OPG would begin Pickering’s refurbishment in 2028, with the goal of returning its reactors to service by the mid-2030s. Previous refurbishments have unfolded over longer periods.
Click to expand...
www.theglobeandmail.com

Ontario to announce refurbishment of four reactors at Pickering nuclear power plant

Announcement marks the government’s latest move to preserve and expand the province’s fleet or nuclear reactors
www.theglobeandmail.com www.theglobeandmail.com
 
I imagine the government is getting better at these refurbishments with the Bruce and Darlington projects reaching their respective ends.

I'm eagerly awaiting more nuclear announcements - I would not be surprised to see the Nanticoke Nuclear facility revived as well.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top