13 ms·

This type of storage, whether it be water reservoirs or compressed air, is especially important in Ontario. We have a very strong base supply from our three lar

This type of storage, whether it be water reservoirs or compressed air, is especially important in Ontario. We have a very strong base supply from our three large nuclear facilities and hydroelectric dams, but the rest is largely made up of wind, solar, and gas. Because the peak supply from solar is midday and the peak load is often in the evening [1], you're left running the 'peakers' (gas plants) for most of the night to make up the difference. If we were able to store more energy short term, we could conceivably remove natural gas energy production and be 100% green/renewable. As of 2018 we were 96% renewable [2] so it's really not some pipe dream. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve [2] https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/nrg/ntgrtd/mrkt/nrgsstmprfls/on-eng.html https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/nrg/ntgrtd/mrkt/nrgsstmprfls/on-en... And honestly, I'm okay with paying a little more on my energy bill for the next couple years knowing that my province has made the decision to be part of the solution.

pwarner 6y ago
It's important or will be everywhere. Source: California where the lights are literally about to go out...
hervature 6y ago
You are aware that nuclear power is not considered renewable by the majority of people correct? That puts Ontario at less than 50% renewable.
- yabones 6y ago
  You're technically correct, and what I should have said was 'zero-carbon emitting sources' as was in the source. But for practical purposes there is so much Uranium on this planet that we'll most likely never even use 1% of it. Especially when you factor in newer or experimental reactor designs such as fast breeder reactors [1] that can generate even more power and use waste materials from current systems. So yes, it is technically not a renewable source of energy, but there is such abundance of fuel that it's not 'non-renewable' the way Coal or Gas is. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Fast_breeder_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Fast_breeder_r...
  - marmaduke 6y ago
    Aren’t waste disposal sites effectively non-renewable uses of natural space?
    - ethanwillis 6y ago
      The amount of all nuclear waste ever produced takes up about the space of a football field.
      - objclxt 6y ago
        > The amount of all nuclear waste ever produced takes up about the space of a football field No. Let’s be generous and use a soccer field, which is bigger than a NFL field, at 7,100 m3. There is about 22,000 m3 of high level nuclear waste globally, according to the IAEA. That’s the really bad stuff. There’s 460,000 m3 of intermediate level (sludge, reactor cladding, etc), and 3,479,000 m3 of low level. So yeah, considerably more than the space of a football field. [source: https://nda.blog.gov.uk/2019/08/02/how-much-radioactive-waste-is-there-in-the-world/ https://nda.blog.gov.uk/2019/08/02/how-much-radioactive-wast...]
        daurnimator 6y ago
        How are you going from size of a field (which should be square meters) to volume (meters cubed)? The MCG (an australian football field) is 25,000 square meters. The stadium holds approx 1,700,000 cubic metres. "Football field" is a highly regional term.... lets not measure things in them?
        ethanwillis 6y ago
        Just a quick clarification. My comment wasn't clear I wanted to talk about waste from reactors specifically, but yes there is more nuclear waste if you do include all sources. Why don't we talk about the difference between high level nuclear waste(HLW), intermediate level waste(ILW), and low level waste (LLW)? The volume breakdown for nuclear waste is roughly LLW 90% ILW 7% HLW 3% "Radioactivity" contribution breakdown is like so. LLW 1% ILW 4% HLW 95% [1] https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-waste-management.aspx https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fu...
- tonyarkles 6y ago
  If you replace “renewable” with “not based on burning hydrocarbons”, you’ve still got a dramatically better source of electricity than what most of the world uses.
- AngryData 6y ago
  Im not sure uranium or other radiological material is really rare enough to call it non-renewable. Technically it isn't, but technically the sun doesn't last forever either. Nuclear materials can be found basically everywhere with rock or dirt, and much of it is recyclable into other nuclear materials down to the tiniest little bits. Just because we currently only want the richest and cheapest and least power intensive mines doesn't mean that is all we have available. It is like worrying about running out of iron, technically yes but realistically no.
- rmason 6y ago
  Thorium 'the green nuke' powered plants produce 1/1000 as much waste as uranium powered ones. They're also virtually impossible to melt down though to be fair they're more expensive to build. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power We already had thorium plants run by the TVA as late as the early seventies. Research would be needed to modernize those designs, money our government has refused to spend. China, India and other countries have thorium research projects. The Netherlands just brought the first thorium powered plant online since the fifties. https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/254692-new-molten-salt-thorium-reactor-first-time-decades https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/254692-new-molten-salt-t...
  - dredmorbius 6y ago
    Thorium plants also have the unfortunate characteristic of not existing in deployable commercial form (and only very barely in experimental form).
    - arcticbull 6y ago
      CANDU reactors support mixed Uranium and Thorium fuel. "CANDU can also breed fuel from the more abundant thorium. This is being investigated by India to take advantage of its natural thorium reserves." [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor
      - dredmorbius 6y ago
        Thanks, noted.
        arcticbull 6y ago
        I think the reason they don't go the Thorium route is that Uranium is just so abundant -- and so incredibly energy dense -- there's not a hugely compelling reason to switch to Thorium.
- glogla 6y ago
  That's one of the issues with current energy policy of most of the world - the terminology and thinking is stuck in the days when everyone thought the problem is we're going to run out of oil or coal or whatever. But that's not the problem humanity faces today - we will all die of climate change decades sooner than we run out of oil or gas or uranium. We should be focused on low/zero-carbon energy and not on renewability.
wolco 6y ago
I'm interested in paying 5 cent/kWatt hour that nuclear and water/dams offer. Less interested in 75 cents for locked in solar contracts.
- tialaramex 6y ago
  What is the form of the "75 cents for locked in solar contracts" ? That's Canadian, so equivalent to about $500/MWh wholesale US prices? It's in the nature of R&D investment that you can't have tomorrow's prices for things built today, so if government agreed to pay 75 cents per kWh to drive innovation ten years ago that's what you have to pay now, you can't change your mind now the work is done or else nobody will work with you in future since they've no reason to think they'd get paid. But $500/MWh does seem high, subsidised UK solar projects from five years ago receive about $80/MWh and new ones proposed this year are expected to pay somewhere in the ballpark of $50-60 (less than consumers pay for electricity but more than unsubsidised providers are paid for it most of the time). So perhaps I just don't understand the basis on which you've got 75 cents.
  - Scoundreller 6y ago
    Yes, their rooftop solar program initially paid 80 cents/kwh under 20 year contracts. http://www.yourturn.ca/solar/microfit/what-is-the-microfit-program/ http://www.yourturn.ca/solar/microfit/what-is-the-microfit-p... Not sure if it counts as innovation when one buys something for far more than it's resold for at a mass-scale.
    - tialaramex 6y ago
      Oh, a _feed in tariff_. OK, so that's never going to make sense as a wholesale price because it isn't one.
      - Scoundreller 6y ago
        At the end of the day, the system operator covers the program costs via higher prices for electricity consumers (the "global adjustment"). Somehow we've ended up with a "market" price of electricity of 2 cents/kwh, and another 10c/kwh for global adjustments (includes more than just solar and wind subsidies). This is before distribution and transmission. http://ieso.ca/power-data/price-overview/global-adjustment http://ieso.ca/power-data/price-overview/global-adjustment
908B64B197 6y ago
What's interesting is that they pour money into these alternatives, or worse, refurbish nuclear power plants at a huge cost instead of buying their neighbor's surplus of clean energy. Must be politically motivated! [0] https://www.nationalobserver.com/2020/01/15/news/critics-say-doug-fords-goal-keeping-aging-nuclear-plant-online-playing-fire https://www.nationalobserver.com/2020/01/15/news/critics-say... [1] https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/door-closed-on-hydro-sales-to-ontario-doug-ford-1.4710621 https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/door-closed-on-hydro-sales-to-on...
- Scoundreller 6y ago
  I thought Quebec had a better trade in selling to New England and New York with its HVDC links: http://www.hydroquebec.com/transenergie/en/reseau-bref.html http://www.hydroquebec.com/transenergie/en/reseau-bref.html
  - 908B64B197 6y ago
    My understanding is that they could sell to both and still have surplus. If I'm not mistaken, there's also unbuilt capacity that could be further expanded if there was a buyer around.
  - tialaramex 6y ago
    electricityMap Live suggests both Ontario and Quebec sell to New York. https://www.electricitymap.org/zone/US-NY-NYIS https://www.electricitymap.org/zone/US-NY-NYIS But the nature of such links is that they're often saturated if it makes sense to move power - so even if you have 10GW of electricity and New York are willing buyers at the price you offer if there's only 2GW of interconect you can only sell them 2GW of electricity. As a result it can make sense for Ontario to buy electricity from Quebec and sell electricity to New York, even though Quebec is also selling electricity to New York.
    - Scoundreller 6y ago
      ... and NY is selling to OH/PA/etc and they're selling to Indiana and Illinois :) Dunno if they're re-selling, or if ON/QC pay for the transmission. Dunno how all that works.

pwarner 6y ago

It's important or will be everywhere. Source: California where the lights are literally about to go out...

hervature 6y ago

You are aware that nuclear power is not considered renewable by the majority of people correct? That puts Ontario at less than 50% renewable.

yabones 6y ago
You're technically correct, and what I should have said was 'zero-carbon emitting sources' as was in the source. But for practical purposes there is so much Uranium on this planet that we'll most likely never even use 1% of it. Especially when you factor in newer or experimental reactor designs such as fast breeder reactors [1] that can generate even more power and use waste materials from current systems. So yes, it is technically not a renewable source of energy, but there is such abundance of fuel that it's not 'non-renewable' the way Coal or Gas is. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Fast_breeder_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Fast_breeder_r...
- marmaduke 6y ago
  Aren’t waste disposal sites effectively non-renewable uses of natural space?
  - ethanwillis 6y ago
    The amount of all nuclear waste ever produced takes up about the space of a football field.
    - objclxt 6y ago
      > The amount of all nuclear waste ever produced takes up about the space of a football field No. Let’s be generous and use a soccer field, which is bigger than a NFL field, at 7,100 m3. There is about 22,000 m3 of high level nuclear waste globally, according to the IAEA. That’s the really bad stuff. There’s 460,000 m3 of intermediate level (sludge, reactor cladding, etc), and 3,479,000 m3 of low level. So yeah, considerably more than the space of a football field. [source: https://nda.blog.gov.uk/2019/08/02/how-much-radioactive-waste-is-there-in-the-world/ https://nda.blog.gov.uk/2019/08/02/how-much-radioactive-wast...]
      - daurnimator 6y ago
        How are you going from size of a field (which should be square meters) to volume (meters cubed)? The MCG (an australian football field) is 25,000 square meters. The stadium holds approx 1,700,000 cubic metres. "Football field" is a highly regional term.... lets not measure things in them?
      - ethanwillis 6y ago
        Just a quick clarification. My comment wasn't clear I wanted to talk about waste from reactors specifically, but yes there is more nuclear waste if you do include all sources. Why don't we talk about the difference between high level nuclear waste(HLW), intermediate level waste(ILW), and low level waste (LLW)? The volume breakdown for nuclear waste is roughly LLW 90% ILW 7% HLW 3% "Radioactivity" contribution breakdown is like so. LLW 1% ILW 4% HLW 95% [1] https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-waste-management.aspx https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fu...
tonyarkles 6y ago
If you replace “renewable” with “not based on burning hydrocarbons”, you’ve still got a dramatically better source of electricity than what most of the world uses.
AngryData 6y ago
Im not sure uranium or other radiological material is really rare enough to call it non-renewable. Technically it isn't, but technically the sun doesn't last forever either. Nuclear materials can be found basically everywhere with rock or dirt, and much of it is recyclable into other nuclear materials down to the tiniest little bits. Just because we currently only want the richest and cheapest and least power intensive mines doesn't mean that is all we have available. It is like worrying about running out of iron, technically yes but realistically no.
rmason 6y ago
Thorium 'the green nuke' powered plants produce 1/1000 as much waste as uranium powered ones. They're also virtually impossible to melt down though to be fair they're more expensive to build. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power We already had thorium plants run by the TVA as late as the early seventies. Research would be needed to modernize those designs, money our government has refused to spend. China, India and other countries have thorium research projects. The Netherlands just brought the first thorium powered plant online since the fifties. https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/254692-new-molten-salt-thorium-reactor-first-time-decades https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/254692-new-molten-salt-t...
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  Thorium plants also have the unfortunate characteristic of not existing in deployable commercial form (and only very barely in experimental form).
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    CANDU reactors support mixed Uranium and Thorium fuel. "CANDU can also breed fuel from the more abundant thorium. This is being investigated by India to take advantage of its natural thorium reserves." [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor
    - dredmorbius 6y ago
      Thanks, noted.
      - arcticbull 6y ago
        I think the reason they don't go the Thorium route is that Uranium is just so abundant -- and so incredibly energy dense -- there's not a hugely compelling reason to switch to Thorium.
glogla 6y ago
That's one of the issues with current energy policy of most of the world - the terminology and thinking is stuck in the days when everyone thought the problem is we're going to run out of oil or coal or whatever. But that's not the problem humanity faces today - we will all die of climate change decades sooner than we run out of oil or gas or uranium. We should be focused on low/zero-carbon energy and not on renewability.

wolco 6y ago

I'm interested in paying 5 cent/kWatt hour that nuclear and water/dams offer. Less interested in 75 cents for locked in solar contracts.

tialaramex 6y ago
What is the form of the "75 cents for locked in solar contracts" ? That's Canadian, so equivalent to about $500/MWh wholesale US prices? It's in the nature of R&D investment that you can't have tomorrow's prices for things built today, so if government agreed to pay 75 cents per kWh to drive innovation ten years ago that's what you have to pay now, you can't change your mind now the work is done or else nobody will work with you in future since they've no reason to think they'd get paid. But $500/MWh does seem high, subsidised UK solar projects from five years ago receive about $80/MWh and new ones proposed this year are expected to pay somewhere in the ballpark of $50-60 (less than consumers pay for electricity but more than unsubsidised providers are paid for it most of the time). So perhaps I just don't understand the basis on which you've got 75 cents.
- Scoundreller 6y ago
  Yes, their rooftop solar program initially paid 80 cents/kwh under 20 year contracts. http://www.yourturn.ca/solar/microfit/what-is-the-microfit-program/ http://www.yourturn.ca/solar/microfit/what-is-the-microfit-p... Not sure if it counts as innovation when one buys something for far more than it's resold for at a mass-scale.
  - tialaramex 6y ago
    Oh, a _feed in tariff_. OK, so that's never going to make sense as a wholesale price because it isn't one.
    - Scoundreller 6y ago
      At the end of the day, the system operator covers the program costs via higher prices for electricity consumers (the "global adjustment"). Somehow we've ended up with a "market" price of electricity of 2 cents/kwh, and another 10c/kwh for global adjustments (includes more than just solar and wind subsidies). This is before distribution and transmission. http://ieso.ca/power-data/price-overview/global-adjustment http://ieso.ca/power-data/price-overview/global-adjustment

908B64B197 6y ago

What's interesting is that they pour money into these alternatives, or worse, refurbish nuclear power plants at a huge cost instead of buying their neighbor's surplus of clean energy. Must be politically motivated! [0] https://www.nationalobserver.com/2020/01/15/news/critics-say-doug-fords-goal-keeping-aging-nuclear-plant-online-playing-fire https://www.nationalobserver.com/2020/01/15/news/critics-say... [1] https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/door-closed-on-hydro-sales-to-ontario-doug-ford-1.4710621 https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/door-closed-on-hydro-sales-to-on...

Scoundreller 6y ago
I thought Quebec had a better trade in selling to New England and New York with its HVDC links: http://www.hydroquebec.com/transenergie/en/reseau-bref.html http://www.hydroquebec.com/transenergie/en/reseau-bref.html
- 908B64B197 6y ago
  My understanding is that they could sell to both and still have surplus. If I'm not mistaken, there's also unbuilt capacity that could be further expanded if there was a buyer around.
- tialaramex 6y ago
  electricityMap Live suggests both Ontario and Quebec sell to New York. https://www.electricitymap.org/zone/US-NY-NYIS https://www.electricitymap.org/zone/US-NY-NYIS But the nature of such links is that they're often saturated if it makes sense to move power - so even if you have 10GW of electricity and New York are willing buyers at the price you offer if there's only 2GW of interconect you can only sell them 2GW of electricity. As a result it can make sense for Ontario to buy electricity from Quebec and sell electricity to New York, even though Quebec is also selling electricity to New York.
  - Scoundreller 6y ago
    ... and NY is selling to OH/PA/etc and they're selling to Indiana and Illinois :) Dunno if they're re-selling, or if ON/QC pay for the transmission. Dunno how all that works.