News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 9.3K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.3K     0 

I agree that we should be mixing up our energy sources, but for the time being we will need nuclear.
More to the point, look at the energy mix of countries like Denmark and Germany which are leading wind energy.

They still use Nuclear for a base-load with wind energy used mostly for peak load. Gas generators are still built and maintained for backup and balancing issues that wind generation creates.
 
Hydrogen fuel cells could be used for the same purpose as gas thermal plants, except fuel cells could be diffuse across the network, and also provide cogeneration of heat for buildings. Excess electricity off-peak and when it's windy could be used to build up reserves.

All that's really required is less capital intensive ways of producing hydrogen on an industrial scale.

It is possible to have network without nuclear or fossil fuels, but it will require substantial investment in technologies designed to stabilise supply in response to short-term fluctuations in generating capacity. If you're concerned about cost, you should also be concerned about our continued dependancy on nuclear... it has high initial cost and high on-going cost (disposing of waste), as well as high decommissioning cost. And, we're talking tens of billions....
 
It will be quite a while before enough free hydrogen is available to take the place of natural gas at power plant.

All that's really required is less capital intensive ways of producing hydrogen on an industrial scale.

Less capital intensive means of producing, not using hydrocarbons as a source, less energy intensive, more capable methods of capturing and storing methane for eventual separation of hydrogen, not freaking some people out when potentially employing engineered bacteria for generating free hydrogen...

Hydrogen is, an will be, a viable source of fuel, but it is a long way off (many years) from being available in the same way that hydrocarbons are.
 
I agree with you there. Maybe not so many years as you think, though.
 
^Believe me, I hope not.

Like you, I am a "hydrogen optimist." I just don't want to see the whole program beaten up because there were too many promises made too early on.
 
Emotions high at Portlands Energy Centre meeting
Plant must form community liaison committee

Link to Article

JOANNA LAVOIE
Nov. 23, 2006
www.insidetoronto.com

A public meeting held to involve the community in the development and operation of the Portlands Energy Centre (PEC), evolved, for the most part, into an emotional discussion about the facility's negative effects on the community and the need for it in the first place.

"I don't think this is the place (to discuss these topics)," said one frustrated resident, who wished to remain anonymous.

"We have the opportunity to make this (plant) fit into our community. We have an opportunity to help influence some things," said Barry Glasser, PEC's project manager.

He then said what many people at the meeting clearly didn't want to hear or accept: "The debate's over. The plant will be built," said Glasser.

"The time's arrived for us to work together. I believe a community liaison committee (CLC) can have a positive influence on the project."

Dawn Dawson, a Danforth area resident, isn't so sure about that. She said the CLC is merely a way to appease neighbours and not a real forum for dialogue.

"This is PR. They've decided what they're going to do and are doing this to make us feel better," she said, questioning who will be accountable for the 550-megawatt gas-fired energy generation plant's future health and environmental impacts.

"This whole process makes me sad because it's not going to change anything."

Ted Greutzner, PEC's senior manager of public affairs, said that the meeting's organizers understood that a wide variety of views would be expressed, and that future sessions would be more focused on the issues at hand.

"We recognize (the plant) is a concern for some people but we want to move forward and address some of the issues," he said of the committee, a requirement of PEC's environmental approvals.

"We knew we were going to get a little sidetracked. It's hopefully a first step in what we hope will be a fruitful process."

Even Ward 32 Councillor Sandra Bussin (Beaches-East York) said that it might be more beneficial to form a working group that would share information with the larger community about the project.

"We have to look at whether a community liaison committee is the most effective way. There needs to be a way of establishing a working group that reports to the community as a whole," said Bussin, chatting with concerned neighbours after the two-and-a-half-hour session.

Ward 30 Councillor Paula Fletcher (Toronto-Danforth) did not attend the meeting due to a family health problem but did put together a letter outlining her concerns, which include cleaning up the port lands beyond the PEC site, monitoring air quality, certificates of approval and requirements for participating in the committee.

Expressing concerns about health and environmental impacts that the 550-megawatt gas-fired plant will bring as well as the benefits of energy conservation, several of the roughly 40 people in attendance challenged representatives from the PEC about their corporate citizenship, the city's energy needs, smog, health issues, environmental assessments and certificates of approval, when the plant would run and other general energy issues.

Representatives from the Independent Electricity System Operator, the Ontario Ministry of Energy and Conservation Bureau of the Ontario Power Authority were also on hand to answer questions.

Amid the barrage of comments, Dave Dilks of Lura Consulting - a firm retained to facilitate the CLC - highlighted a few points of interest that the CLC could address at future meetings.

These included bird-friendly lighting, landscaping, transportation to and from the plant, sustainable design, air quality monitoring and health effects.

Lura' Susan Hall gave a short presentation about the committee's starting point, its formation, purpose and mandate, how people can get involved and what the next steps would be.

Many in attendance also expressed concerns about what the committee's terms of reference would entail, notably the need to sign up to be a member. Speaking with about 20 unnamed stakeholders, Lura representatives said they used this feedback when formulating the terms of reference, which also call for an open and accountable process and meaningful dialogue.

The CLC's next meeting is planned for January 2007. Broader community meetings about the plant will also take place.
-----------------------------------------

Now that election is over, both Bussin and Fletcher have conceded PEC is going ahead. They both campaigned to stop PEC from going ahead. Fletcher was quite adamant she was going to do everything in her power to stop PEC when she came knocking for support.
 
This is a natural gas plant. Air quality will be hardly affected. The concern for me is that we're wasting prime land. GHG is another, secondary concern (as I'm guessing that the main alternatives involve GHG emissions elsewhere).
 
I actually have the opposite concern, afransen. The PEC might have some negative impacts on air quality. Of course it's far better than coal-generated electricity, but if you look at the opposition to the Suroit plant in Quebec, there are definitely environmental consequences to burning gas.

The land use issue concerns me far less since the city designated the land surrounding the plant as a "campus" for cement manufacturers in the waterfront plan, hardly the highest use of the land.
 
Link to article

Portlands Energy Centre to house new solar energy park

JOANNA LAVOIE
www.insideToronto.com

01/11/07 11:49:00
The Portlands Energy Centre (PEC) could soon be home to Canada's largest solar research facility.

The project, a partnership between the PEC, the University of Toronto and ARISE Technologies, will garner between 500 kilowatts to one megawatt of energy, enough to power 1,000 homes. This represents an investment of $5 million to $8 million.

A release indicated that while providing much-needed energy to GTA homes, the solar research facility would also give U of T students and staff an opportunity to study renewable energy systems and technologies.

In turn, their findings would help with the development of photovoltaic (PV) systems for commercial and utility-scale uses.

"We are very pleased to be involved with this and will use this project as a large-scale deployment of our high-efficiency PV cells. ... This project will provide an opportunity for our systems group to study and optimize implementation of large-scale systems for deployment in Ontario," said Ian MacLellan, president and CEO of ARISE Technologies said in a release.

The agreement, officially announced Wednesday, indicates that the PEC - the future home of a 550-megawatt gas-fired energy plant - will provide a large parcel of land valued at $2.4 million. The waterfront site is ideal because of its relative proximity to the University of Toronto as well as its access to transmission lines. It also has unobstructed southern exposure.

ARISE's contribution will be the design and installation of a photo power system comprising high-efficiency PV cell technology. Both ARISE (a firm dedicated to accelerating the use of solar energy in mainstream North America) and U of T will collaborate on the specialized technology's development.

The community can also get involved in the facility through a based-share offering, which ARISE will issue in the near future.

Ontario Energy Minister Dwight Duncan said the initiative would help establish Toronto and Ontario as a world leader in solar energy research and development and education.

"Solar and other forms of renewable energy are an important part of Ontario's energy future," he said in a release.

Jim Burpee, PEC's chair, agreed.

"We're thrilled to be part of this project and help create the path to a more sustainable future. We're looking forward to working with ARISE and the students," he said in a release.

Although the project is expected to be up and running by late 2008 or early 2009, a contract with the Ontario Power Authority and the government has yet to be officially finalized.

Further details about the community share-offering plan as well as the facility's size will be announced at a later date.
 
"Solar and other forms of renewable energy are an important part of Ontario's energy future," he said in a release.

And it's time to identify where these alternates can be taken advantage of, and time to start putting the infrastructure in place.

Sometimes I think a MaRS-type organization should be set up in Ontario to deal with energy and distribution issues.
 
at least there's the research center, it makes the site more "not just a powerplant" and kinda better use of land...

now i really hope the Hearn is torn down and the site transformed to something else tho... it was kinda ok to have it there alone but with another monstrous giant of a power plant east of it now, it seems like such a waste of large pieces of land (too much!) on the waterfront in the same area. i kinda like the MaRS idea that someone mentioned. that or like that un peace university, or move the rochester (or wutever) terminal there, or if the new gas powerplant somehow makes a nice backdrop, then something similar to Singapore's Clarke Quay or Beijing's HouHai... so many possible uses... 1 powerplant there is fine but 2 is a waste!
 
Photo update - June 10 2007. "Portlands Energy Centre" is an euphemism for a gas-fired power plant, and being built to the east of the old Hearn plant. The stacks look like the first thing to go up.

PEC1.jpg


PEC2.jpg


PEC3.jpg


PEC4.jpg


PEC5.jpg


PEC6.jpg


PEC7.jpg
 
Those stacks are impressively short compared to the "taller than the Royal York hotel" Hearn stack, even if they will be built up. Will that big Hearn one be demolished?
 

Back
Top