Onterrio. Electricity. Policy, refers, to plans. Legislation. Incentives. Guidelines, and policy, processes, put in place by the government, of the province of Ontario Canada. To address issues of electricity. Production distribution, and. Consumption. Policymaking. In the electricity. Sector involves. Economic, social, and environmental, considerations. Ontario's. Electricity. Supply, outlook, is projected, to deteriorate. In the near future due, to increasing. Demand ageing. Electricity. Supply infrastructure. And political. Commitments, particularly, the phase-out, of coal-fired generation. Policymakers. Are presented, with a range of policy, choices in addressing, the situation both. In terms of overall system, design and structure, and specific. Electricity. Generating. Technologies. Ontario. Finds, itself faced with choices, that define energy policy. Debates throughout, the Western world the role of markets, vs centralized, planning and what Amory Lovins has, term hard. Versus. Soft, energy. Paths ie. Continued. Reliance on, large centralized. Generation, particularly. Nuclear, and coal or moving, towards decentralized. Technologies. Including. Energy efficiency. And low impact renewables. As such. How Ontario. Electricity. Policy evolves. In the near future will, be of relevance to other jurisdictions. Facing, similar options, or challenges. Topic. History. Of electricity, demand, planning. In Ontario. Topic. Early, history, in. 1925. Ontario's. Public, electricity, utility. Established. In 1906. The Ontario. Hydroelectric. Commission, HEC. Later Ontario. Hydro, constructed. What was then the world's largest hydroelectric. Plant. Queenston. Chief power now, Baek Wan from. This early beginning, until the post-war, economic, boom of the 1950's. Ontario. Hydro was, able to meet growing demand for, electricity, by, expanding. Its network of hydraulic, generating, facilities. Planning. For Ontario's. Electricity. System, was relatively, simple for two reasons, one electricity. Was coming almost entirely. From hydroelectric power, and to the electricity, system consisted. Of several smaller systems, making, management, considerably. Easier. Challenges. To the system, began to emerge in the 1950s. The accessible. Water power sites were exploited. And the provinces, electricity. Distribution system. Was limited, in capacity, to. Address these problems the. HEC. Began, constructing, new, coal-fired electricity. Generation. Plants, near major sources, of electricity, demand, and, launched plans, to build nuclear power plants.
Across The province of Ontario. Between. The early, 1970s. And early 1990s. Twenty, can new power reactors. Were brought into service, at the Pickering, aid reactors, Bruce eight reactors, and Darlington, four reactors, nuclear generating. Facilities. Electricity. Demand, planning. 1970s. To 1990s. The. Power Corporation, Act, required, Ontario. Hydro formally, AGP, Co renamed. In. 1974. To provide, power, at, cost. This. Philosophy became, part of the culture and law of electricity, supply in Ontario. The. Utility, did not pay taxes, nor was it intended to generate profits. Topic. Porter, Commission. Amid. Growing concern, over the cost of nuclear power coupled. With inflation. And recessions, that reduced the demand for electricity, the, Porter Commission. 1975. To, 1979. Performed. A detailed, review on the problem, of electricity, supply. The. Porter Commission's, conclusions, were simple, demand, management not. Supply planning must, be the focus, of Ontario, electricity. Planning. Topic. Demand. Supply plan, DSP. Report. It. Was not until 1989. However, that, Ontario, Hydro published. Its first demand supply plan DSP. Report. Providing. The balance, of power. The. Plan projected, a supply demand, gap would open up in the mid-1990s, reaching. 9700. Megawatts, by, 2005. And, 21300. Megawatts. By 2014. To, address. This gap Ontario. Hydro proposed. Building, several additional, nuclear and coal-fired, generation. Plants. In. 1992. Ontario. Hydro issued, a revised supply, demand, plan report as a. Public, body all Ontario. Hydro, projects, including, the DSP. Were subject, to the provinces, environmental. Assessment, Act by. 1993. However. Faced, with increasing criticism. From the provinces, independent. Quasi-judicial. Environmental. Assessment, board a recession, and economic restructuring. That dramatically. Reduced industrial, electricity, demand, and an oversupply, of electricity, as the Darlington nuclear, power plant came into service. The DSP was, withdrawn, by Ontario. Hydro and, no additional generating. Facilities, were built. Topic. Ontario's. Short, experiment. With competitive. Retail markets. In. The 1990s. Ontario. Hydros, enormous, debt from the building of the Darlington, Nuclear, Generating Station. Became, a major political, issue. Ontario. Hydro was, becoming, financially and, operationally. Dysfunctional. The, situation. Forced, Ontario, Hydro to, dramatically, reduce staff, and transmission. Investments. Ontario. Hydro also, published, a document called, hydro, 21. This. Report, suggested. That electricity. System, in Ontario should. Be restructured, in a more market-oriented, direction. The. Political, impetus, for restructuring, increased. With the 1995. Election, of the mike harris government, in. That year, mike harris commissioned, the macdonald committee the. Committee recommended. The elimination of, Ontario hydros, monopoly, on managing, generation. Capacity and, that the electricity. Market be opened up to competition. In, response. To the Macdonald committee's, recommendations. The Ontario, government released. Direction. For change charting. A course for, competitive, electricity. And jobs in Ontario, in. 1997. Detailing. The government's, plans to open the market for electricity, supply. The. Competitive, market, did not actually open, until May, 2002. Participation. In the retail market, was voluntary, with customers, having the option of entering into contracts. Or rates being set in the five minutes. Market, retail. Consumers. Were also, free to enter fixed-rate. Contracts. For, those that opted out of the contract, option electricity. Rates passed through a smooth spot market, price, when. The market opened in May wholesale, prices, averaged, three point zero one, cents, per kilowatt-hour. For. A number of reasons however, including. An especially, hot summer a reduction, in domestic, generating, capacity and, an increasing, reliance on, a limited import, capacity, prices, began to rise sharply in, July. A verage, wholesale, price was 6.2.
Cents, Per kilowatt-hour. Under. Surmounting pressure from consumers, the government, adopted, the electricity. Pricing, conservation. And supply, epcs. Act in December, 2002. The. Legislation. Kept retail, prices, at 4.3. Cents per kilowatt. Hour and Ontario. Power Generation the. Successor, of Ontario, hydros, electricity. Generation, division. Was to provide customers, with a rebate, for 100, percent of all electricity charges. Above that mark retroactive. To the market opening and continuing. Until the 1st of May, 2006. Transmission. And distribution rates. Were also frozen at their existing, levels and would remain unchanged. Until the 1st of May, 2006. The. Net result, was a complete, cessation, of new investment, in generation. Capacity, and a significant. Cutback in new investment, in transmission, and distribution. Topic concerns. Regarding aging. Nuclear plants. In. 1996. Major questions. Arose regarding the, status of Ontario's. Nuclear, plants. The. Oldest, of these plants, built in the 1970s. Were, aging and in the early, 1990s. Reliability. Began, to decline significantly. The. Situation. Drew the attention of, the federal nuclear, regulator, the Atomic, Energy Control. Board of Canada, AEC, B now Canadian, Nuclear Safety, Commission and, was acknowledged, by Ontario. Hydro, in. 1996. The AEC, be judged the situation. At Pickering, aid to be particularly, critical and issued the plan to six-month, operating, license, the. Following, year a review, board of industry, experts concluded, that the operations. Of Ontario's. Nuclear, plants, were below, standard. And. Minimally. Acceptable, the. Ontario, government responded. By approving, a nuclear, asset, optimization. Plan proposed, by Ontario. Hydro. The. Plan had three major objectives. One the closure of the seven oldest of the utilities, 19. Operational. Nuclear reactors, for rehabilitation. To the redeployment of, staff and three the spending, of between, 5.8.
Billion Dollars, to implement, the plan in. Order to replace the lost capacity, by the reactor, closures, Ontario. Hydro relied, on its five coal-fired, generation. Facilities. The. Result, was a doubling, of greenhouse, gas emissions smog. And acid rain precursors. From these facilities, between. 1997. And 2001. This. Development. Occurred at a time when poor, air quality was. Already, a growing public health concern, in southern, Ontario. In. Response, to the concerns, of the public health impacts, of increased, coal-fired, generation, all, three, major provincial. Political, parties, included, a coal phase-out, plan in their 2003. Election, platforms. The winner of the election, the Ontario, Liberal, Party, led by Dalton McGuinty, had committed, to a phase-out, by. 2007. Topic. Electricity. Conservation. And supply, task force. The. August, 2003. Blackout, in eastern North America reinforced. Concerns, over the future of electricity, supply in Ontario, in. Response, and electricity. Conservation. And supply task force, AC STF, was formed, submitting, its recommendation. In January. 2004. The task. Force concluded that, the, market, approach adopted, in the late, 1990s. Needs substantial enhancement. If, it is to deliver the new generation. And conservation. Ontario, needs within the time frames, we need them the. Task, force also suggested. That a long-term plan, for generation. And conservation. Was needed. Topic. Creation. Of Ontario. Power Authority. Following. The recommendations. Of the EC STF, the new provincial, government, elected, in October, 2003. Enacted. The Ontario, electricity. Restructuring. Act the. Legislation. Provided, for the creation of the Ontario, Power Authority Opa. One. Of the four mandates, of the OPA was, to address the power system, planning issues. Topic. Green, Energy Act. Ontario's. Green Energy Act payer, and related, amendments, to other legislation. Received, Royal Assent on the 14th, of May 2009. Regulations. And other tools needed, to fully implement, the legislation were. Introduced, through the month of September, 2009. As part of a ten step plan to bring the hey're to life, the. Hey're will attempt to expedite, the growth of clean renewable sources. Of energy like, wind solar. Hydro biomass. And, biogas with, the ambition, to make Ontario, become. North America's, leader in renewable energy. Specifically. This would be attempted by creating. A feed-in tariff that guarantees. Specific, rates for energy generated. From renewable, sources, establishing. The right to connect to the electricity, grid for, renewable, energy projects. That meet technical, economic. And other regulatory, requirements. Establishing. A one-stop, streamlined, approvals, process providing. Service, guarantees, for renewable, energy projects, that meet regulatory, requirements and, hopefully, implementing, a 21st, century, smart. Power. Grid to support, the development of, new renewable energy. Projects. Which may prepare Ontario, for new technologies. Like electric. Cars. Topic. Integrated. Power system. Plan, IPSP. Over. The next 20, years it is expected that approximately. 80% of. The province, of Ontario's. Existing, electricity, generation.
Capacity Will. Need to be replaced. In. May, 2005. The Minister, of Energy Y Duncan, asked, the OPA to provide, recommendations, on. What would be the appropriate mix, of electricity, supply, sources. To satisfy, the expected. Demand in, 2025. Taking. Into account, conservation. Targets, and new sources of renewable energy. Ontario. Faced three major electricity. Challenges, one the phasing, out of coal as a generation. Capacity source. By. 2007. - the impending, end of life shutdown, of nuclear, generation, capacity from. 2009. To, 2025. And 3 the steady increase of summer pizza man in normal, weather patterns. Topic. IPSP, evaluation. And development. Process. In. December. 2005. The OPA. Issued, the supply mix advice report, in response, to the minister's request, the. Reports, principal, recommendation. Was the retention of a major role for nuclear, power in Ontario, with the implication. Of the refurbishment, of existing facilities, and. Even new build plants, while coal generating, capacity would, be replaced, with renewable, energy sources principally. Wind and gas-fired generation. The. Proposals, failure, to incorporate. Significant. Improvements. In the provinces, overall, energy, efficiency. And continued, heavy reliance, nuclear. Power was the subject of widespread criticism, from, the provinces, environmental. Movement, and members, of the public who participated. In consultations. On the OTAs, report, on, the. 13th, of June, 2006. Dwight Duncan Ontario's. Minister, of Energy issued. A directive for, the preparation of, a 20-year integrated. Power system, plan for the province. Ipsp, the minister's directive, included, minimum, goals for conservation. Increased, substantially from. The supply, mix advice report, and renewable, energy and a maximum limit for nuclear, power production. At approximately. The capacity. Of the existing 20. Reactors. Since. Then, the OPA, has published, a discussion, papers as well as a preliminary, version, of the ipsp.
It. Is expected, that the OPA will submit, the ipsp, to the Ontario, Energy Board only, be a regulatory, body, who, will review and then either accept, or reject the plan based on whether or not it complies, with the minister's, directives. And the ipsp, regulations. And whether or not it is prudent, and cost, effective, if. The OEB does, not approve the IPSP, based on these evaluation. Criteria, then the IPSP, is sent back to the OPA for revision. If. The OEB approves, the plan then the OPA, will put the IPSP, into effect on the, same, day the 13th, of June, 2006. That the Ministry, of Energy issued, its directive, the government, of Ontario, passed a regulation, exempting. The IPSP from being subject, to an environmental. Assessment EA under, the Ontario, environmental. Assessment, Act this. Has been met with opposition from. Environmental. Groups who argue, that an EA of the IPSP, is the best, way for Ontarians. To understand, the risks and costs of the government's, electricity. Plan. Topic. Existing. Environmental. Policy. Process. Instead. Of an environmental, assessment of, the plan as had been the case 1989. DSP. A regulation. Made under the electricity. Act 1998. The OPA, was instructed. To e, ensure. That safety. Environmental. Protection. And environmental. Sustainability are. Considered. In. The development of the integrated power, system, plan IPSP. The. OTAs approach, to sustainability. Is outlined, in IPSP, discussion. Paper number 6 sustainability. The. OPA, defines. Sustainable. Development, according to the definition, agreed upon by the world Commission. On Environment. And development. 1983. Report, our common, future. Sustainable. Development, is development, that meets the needs of the present without, compromising. The ability of, future generations, to. Meet their own needs. The. OPA, states, that it has based its consideration. Of sustainability. In the IPSP, on Robert, B Gibson, sustainability. Assessment, criteria and. Processes. Six. Context, specific, criteria, were identified. By the OPA, feasibility.
Reliability. Cost, flexibility. Environmental. Performance and, societal. Acceptance the. OTAs, approach, has been criticized, for a number of reasons. The. OTAs, discussion. Paper on sustainability. Was, published, both after, the supply mix advice, was given to the Ontario government and, after the supply mix directives. Were given to the OPA, by Ontario's. Minister, of Energy, also. Several. Elements, of Gibsons, sustainability. Assessment, framework, were not implemented, or discussed, in discussion, paper number six, sustainability. The ipsp, regulation. Mandates, that the OPA, consider, environmental. Sustainability. In, the IPSP, the. OEB the body responsible. For evaluating the ipsp. Defines. Consider. As meaning. Weighed, and evaluated. Thus. The OPA is only liable for evaluating. The sustainability. Of the IPSP, rather than for the incorporation, of sustainability. Into the IPSP. Topic. Central. Planning and traditional. Regulation. Versus, competitive. Markets. Although. The provincial, government, officially, describes, the system it has established as a hybrid of planning, and market models debates, on the merits of a centrally, planned system, versus, a competitive. Market, approach persist. Topic. Central. Planning, and traditional. Regulation. Central. Or traditional, electricity. Planning, is designed, to expand, supply, resources to, meet demand, growth and to minimize the economic. Costs, of this expansion, by improving, economies, of scale, in electricity, generation. Economies. Of scale, exists, for a vertically, integrated, electric, utility, because, a larger, generating, system, can provide power to many users and additional. Users can be accommodated with, small increases, in power costs. Centrally, planned systems, are usually accompanied. By a regulatory, framework, intended. To restrict or replace competition. With administrative. Restraints, on profits, in. Ontario. Electricity. Rates were typically said by Ontario, Hydro as an approximation. To its long-run, average cost of service, plus a markup, to recover capital, investment, costs, although rates, were never subject, to formal, approval by the Ontario, Energy Board. Howard. Hampton, form a leader of the Ontario, New Democratic, Party argues, that this averaging, out of the cost of power ensures, supply, meets demand in, a cost-effective manner, for. Example, to ensure overall. System, reliability. A considerable. Portion, of generation. Capacity from. Peaking, plants must, remain idle most of the time. Operating. Costs, for peaking, plants however. Are usually, expensive, because they in efficiently, convert costly. Fossil, fuels to electricity, in, Ontario's. Public, monopoly system costs. Were averaged, out between bass road and peaking stations. In. Other words the insurance, cost of reliability, is spread out and shared equitably, by all customers. Under. A deregulated, system. In which generating. Station, must stand, on its own to financial. Fate the. Cost of ensuring such reliability. Would be considerably. Higher as, painting, plans would charge as much as the market will bear as they irrationally, expected, to do those who defend the combination. Of traditional, regulation. And central, planning for the electricity, sector, like, Hampton often, base their arguments on the basic premise that electricity, is an essential, good required, for consumer, well-being. According. To Hampton, central, planning and regulation. Are required, to ensure reliability.
In, Both the supply and delivery, and the generation. And infrastructure. Aspects. Whereas. Planning, under a market, regime, is profit driven central. Planning can ensure that Ontario's. Best interests, are being attended to and not just the interests, of private investors. Stephan. Shot for example, has stated that at least theoretically state. Ownership of the electricity. Sector could, satisfy all, of the criteria. For socially, efficient, and environmentally, sustainable, electricity. Production. This. Includes, fully internalizing. External, social costs, of electricity production. And pricing, electricity. According, to demand, fluctuations. Even, while maintaining stable. Supply central. Planning, however is not without limitations. Central. Planning has the disadvantage of, the risk of political, interference, the. Tendency, for government's has been to avoid creating, policies, that could make electricity, consumption. More, expensive. Or that would require citizen. To adjust their consumption, habits. Furthermore. Central. Planning which seeks to improve economies. Of scale, has historically. Led, to a nearly universal. Strategy, of rapid, capacity. Expansion and, promotion, of demand growth with little, consideration. Of the necessity. Or efficiency. Of energy use. This. Is true of Ontario, Hydro which, faced with the threat of cheap natural gas in the late 1950s. Made, the ill-fated decision. To protect its market. By encouraging, consumers to use more electricity. Ontario. Hydro was, forced to build new more expensive, generating. Plants, and transmission. And distribution, infrastructure. To keep up with demand. Although, signs were present, by the early, 1970s. Indicating. That consumer, demand growth was falling, Wayne Skin argues, that Ontario. Hydros. Board and management had, remained, locked in mega project, mode persisting. In the belief that demand. Would continue, to double every decade. Therefore. Simply, in terms of scale of operations. It can be argued that central, planning in Ontario, by overestimating. Future demand and building unnecessary. Capacity. Has been economically. Inefficient and, has imposed unwarranted. Costs, upon the environment. Topic. Deregulation. And competitive. Markets. Opponents of deregulation. And restructuring. Of the electricity. Sector used, these limitations, to, strengthen, their case arguing. That such flaws are typical, of regulated, centrally, planned systems. Ronald. Daniels, and Michael treble, Kok for example, argue that a premium, should be placed on incremental, ISM and decentralization. In, terms of decision making rather than planning for some. Once-and-for-all. System-wide. Set, of collective, decisions, as to the future, of the electricity. Industry. Moreover. They argue, that competitive, markets, have the added advantage of being able to rely on the knowledge and expertise, possessed, by investors, to generate, a more rational assessment. Of the alleged merits, of a given project, deregulation. Would ensure that rates, would no longer be, based on long term average, costs, as determined. By a central, regulating. Entity, to pricing, based on short-term marginal. Costs, a plant's. Marginal, cost varies, considerably based. On age technology, fuel. Conversion efficiency. And so, on both. Regulated. And deregulated. Systems, operate, to minimize the avoidable, costs of meeting instantaneous. Demand, as. Demand. Is communicated. To a power system dispatcher, this least cost operating, principle. Requires, the dispatcher, to first employ, plants, with the lowest marginal, costs, in. Other words rates, in a deregulated system. Are determined. By hungry, competitors. Contending. For the last megawatt, of demand, in a market, that clears every, five minutes. Eliminating. Average, cost of service rates creates, the need for a market, to determine electricity. Rates. The. Term restructuring. Generally, refers, to the creation of these markets, and the disintegration of, vertically, integrated. Utilities. The. Theoretical, gains from restructuring.
And Numerous. Competition. Coupled, with freeing, electricity. Generators. From cost of service rates ought to give generators, powerful, incentives, to cut costs, which will lower consumer, prices in the long term in other. Words, deregulation. Is said to subject the electricity. Sector to the innovative. And productive forces. Of competition. Competition. Would require generating. Facilities, to assume a much tougher stance in negotiating, contracts. For fuel sources labor, and maintenance. It. Would also require utilities, to, focus on innovation, to increase, technological. Efficiency in, order to remain competitive. In. Addition. Timothy, Considine, and Andrew quiet argue, that competition, would improve the efficiency, of allocating. Electricity. As Don Dewees explains, investors. In a competitive, market, will build new capacity. When they expect to recover all, capital. And operating, costs, from the expected, market price, if, market. Prices, will not cover, the cost of the investment that. Investment. Is socially, excessive. In. Theory, this particular aspect, of deregulation, should, correct the systemic, over expansionary, tendencies. Of centrally, planned regimes. However. Competitive. Markets, are not without limitations. Basic. Economic, theory dictates that, for competition. To exist, a large number of market, participants are, required. Experience. With, deregulation, in, the United, States and the United Kingdom however. Has, shown that competitive. Markets, can lead to market power concentration. And market, manipulation. In. These jurisdictions the, market has been threatened, by the strategic, behavior of, incumbents. And new entrants, that have to larger, market, share the. Case of Enron in California. Is a prime, example for. A competitive, market, to function firms. Cannot, significantly. Influence, prices by adjusting, or shutting, down supply, individually. Furthermore. The promise of competitive, markets to, lower consumer, prices for, the most part has yet to materialize. Data. From the United States for. Example indicates. That while Pennsylvania. And Connecticut have, fairly stable residential. Prices, since restructuring. Most other states have witnessed, price increases. After the year two thousand, while. This may be good news in terms of conservation, and demand-side, management c, and DM objectives. It has made competitive. Markets, unpopular, among consumers, and politically, troublesome. For. Example, as consumer. Prices rose during, Ontario's. Experiment. With deregulation, premier. Ernie eves under, surmounting, political, pressure intervened. Into the market by freezing retail, prices, in November. 2002. This. Is because electricity, is different, from all other products, in that it must be produced, and distributed at, the exact, moment that it is consumed, and in that it is essential, for the functioning of a modern industrial nation. Thus. A market, in electricity, does, not respond, in the same way as the market, for products which can be stored whose purchase, can be deferred or which are not essential. Now. In Ueno and V Miranda, used intelligent. Agent simulation. To show that in moving from a vertically, integrated to.
A Competitive. Electricity. Market, retail, consumers, were heavily disadvantaged. And suppliers, used this to steadily increase, both prices, and profits, this. Occurred even with a large number of suppliers and in the absence, of any active, collusion, between them, however. In practice, collusion, and exploitative, behavior, by suppliers, have been found in real markets, when they have been deregulated. As, David. Freeman who was appointed, chair of the California Power. Authority in, the midst of the power crisis, in that state testified. On Enron's, role in creating the crisis, to the Subcommittee, on Consumer, Affairs foreign. Commerce and tourism of the Senate Committee on Commerce science. And transportation. On the 15th, of May 2002. There is one fundamental lesson. We must learn from this experience. Electricity. Is really, different from everything else it, cannot. Be stored it cannot, be seen and we cannot do without it which makes opportunities. To take advantage, of a deregulated, market, endless, it is. A public, good that must be protected, from private, abuse if, Murphy's. Law were written for a market, approach to electricity. Then the law would state any system, that can be gamed will be gamed and at the worst possible time, and a market approach for electricity, is, inherently, game herbal never. Again, can we allow private, interests, to create artificial. Or even real shortages, and to be in control. Market. Manipulation. For private, profit thus, creates, government, intervention. Into the marketplace. This. Intervention. Although certainly. Supported, by electricity. Consumers, creates, doubt in the minds of potential, investors who, then begin to question the government's, commitment to restructuring. An, unattractive. Environment. For private investors. In turn threatens, overall, supply in a competitive, market, regime, as planning, for and building new generating. Capacity becomes. An increasing, risk this. Is why some supporters, of restructuring. Like dawei's admit, t he greatest, risk to competitive, markets, may not be power shortages. Or heat waves but government, intervention. Topic. Conservation. And demand, management. Electricity. Use can be divided into three main sectors. Residential. Sector, this includes, residential. Space and water heating and, cooling lighting, household. Appliances, etc. Electricity. Use in this sector accounts, for about one third of total consumption, in Ontario. Residential. Demand is projected to decline slightly. Commercial. Sector, this includes, mainly space heating and cooling as well as commercial, and office lighting, this. Sector, accounts, for about 39%, of, Ontario's. Total, electricity, consumption. And is projected, to grow the most. Industrial. Sector, this includes, manufacturing, activities. Mining, activities, forestry. And construction. Industrial. Consumers, account for approximately, 28%. Of, electricity, consumed. In Ontario. This. Consumption, is projected to remain stable, electricity. Demand, can also be separated as baseload and peak demand, base. Load refers, to constant. Or unvarying, demand. For electricity. In. Ontario, base load amounts, to approximately.
13,000. Megawatts, and is met by nuclear, and hydroelectric, power. These. Supply, options generally. Have low operating, costs. Nuclear. Stations, are limited in their capability. To rapidly, change their output. Hydroelectric. Stations, can rapidly change their output, and are typically used to adjust grid supply to match, instantaneous. Demand. Peak. Demand refers, to fluctuating. Or varying, needs for electricity, above, and beyond base load levels. Added. To this base load the peak load raises, Ontario's. Maximum, electricity. Demand to, 27,000. Megawatts. This. Peak is typically, met by oil natural. Gas-fired, coal, and select hydroelectric. Power plants. These. Plants, can respond, to changes, in demand rapidly. But have higher operating, costs, average. Demand. In Ontario, is currently. 17,500. Megawatts, electricity. Demand is greatly affected, by seasonal. Variations. A recent. Trend has developed, whereby summer, peak demand, has grown to outpace, winter, peak loads, this. Is primarily, the result of increasingly, warm summer conditions, the. Highest load recorded, in Ontario, occurred, on the 1st of August, 2006. When peak demand for electricity, reached, twenty, seven thousand, and five megawatts. The. Highest winter, peak demand, occurred the 13th, of February. 2007. When peak demand was twenty-five thousand, eight hundred and sixty eight megawatts. Peak. Demand, also, varies, by the time of day the, daily peak period, refers, to the time of the day when demand is at its high in. Winter, there are generally, two peaking. Periods, around 10:30, a.m. in, the morning, and around 6 p.m. in the evening in, summer. Months, demand peaks, in the late, noon when temperatures, are at their hottest. Topic. Current, and expected, future electricity. Demand, current, annual electricity demand. In Ontario, is. 151, terawatt-hours. In. Other words on average, Ontarians. Consume. 12750. Kilowatt, hours per person, per, year, based. On, 2003. Information. This figure is approximately. 25, percent lower, than the Canadian, average roughly, equal to u.s. rates and about twice as high as European, consumption. Levels see electricity, consumption, by country, in order. To supply such demand, Ontario. Counts, on 31,000. Megawatts, of installed power, capacity, broken. Down as follows 37. Percent nuclear, 26. Percent renewable, including, hydroelectric. Power, 16%. Natural, gas and 21%, coal. Total. Electricity, demand, has been increasing. In Ontario, over the last decades, in. Particular, during. The period. 1993. To 2004. It increased, at a rate of approximately. 0.5. Percent several, factors affect, how much energy is consumed, by Ontarians. These. Include, population. Growth according, to 2006. Census, data, Ontario's. Population. Has increased 6.6. Percent in, the past five years. This. Considerable. Growth offsets, the effects, of reduced per capita, consumption, in Ontario, and results, in overall, increased, electricity. Consumption. Economic. Growth Ontario's. GDP. Growth has varied, between 2%, and 3% in. Recent, years and is expected to average 3.0. Percent, over the next few years, although. Electricity. Per unit of GDP has. Been falling in the past few years the total rate of economic growth will, result, in increased overall, demand, this. Overall increase, however is significantly. Smaller than the rate of economic or, population. Growth showing, that electricity, demand, is decoupled, from these to growth rates a pattern, that is recently, being replicated in, other areas, of Canada, and other g7 countries.
Climate. Variability, given, that a large part of electricity, consumption, is related, to space and water heating and, cooling the increasing. Variability, of temperatures. In Ontario, will likely result in greater electricity. Demand over time. Industrial. Activity, heavy industry, mining, pulp and paper auto, manufacturing. Etc, consumes. More energy than, service, and knowledge related, economic sectors. However. Structural. Changes, are occurring in the provinces, economy, particularly, the decline of heavy manufacturing and, increase, in service and knowledge sectors, which will result in reduced industrial. Electricity, demand, overall. Electricity. Prices, as of september 10th 2016. Electricity. Rates in Ontario, are among the highest in North America. Conservation. And demand management C, and DM practices. C and D M initiatives, can significantly reduce. Electricity. Demand. Conservation. Can result in improved productivity. Lower, energy, bills and price fluctuations. As well reduced, environmental. Impacts. All of the above variables. Affect the forecasting. Of future electricity, demand, the. Uncertainty. Embedded, in these factors, accumulates. And makes it difficult to determine how, much electricity, will be consumed, in the future, in. Its 2005. Supply, mix advice report, the OPA estimated. That electricity. Demand will grow at a rate of 0.9. Percent, annually, between, 2006. And 2025. Rising. To approximately. 170. Terawatt-hours, per, year by 2025. This. Opa estimate, is nearly double the actual, rate of electricity, demand growth, between, 1990. And 2003. Of 0.5. Percent, per year in. Fact, the rate of growth in electricity, demand, in Ontario, has been in decline since. 1950. This. Was a result of the structural, changes, in the Ontario economy, over this period particularly. The decline of heavy manufacturing. And increased, growth in the service and knowledge sectors. The. OPA projections. Are controversial. Organizations. Like pollution probe, the Pembina Institute, and the Ontario clean, air alliance claim that the OPA Supply mix is fundamentally. Supply oriented. And overestimates. Future, electricity. Demand, they. Base their claims on several, reports, that estimate, lower demand, projections. Topic. Conservation. And demand side management initiatives. In Ontario, demand, side management DSM. Consists. Of the implementation of, different, policies, and measures that serve to influence.
The Demand for, a product, when. Talking about electricity, it is often referred to as conservation. And demand management C, and DM or CDM, as it aims to reduce electricity. Demand either by using more efficient, technologies or. By changing wasteful. Habits. C. And D M also addresses, reductions, in peat demand via demand, response, drive, programs. Demand. Response does not lower total, electricity, demand, rather it shifts demand out of the peak times. Economically. Rational and, technically, feasible, conservation. Is considered, by some to be the cheapest, cleanest, way to bridge, the gap between supply. And demand. For. Example, load reductions. Are vital in achieving, the goal of shutting down Ontario's. Coal plants, and in avoiding imports, of us coal-fired, power, which entails, important. Health and environmental, benefits. Moreover. The, implementation. Of aggressive, C and DM mechanisms. Would lower consumers. Bills while increasing, the provinces, energy, productivity. Ontario's. Economy currently. Reflects. Relatively, low electricity, productivity. Levels, measured as GDP, per, electricity. Use, the. State of New York has an electricity, productivity. Rate that is 2.3. Times higher than that of Ontario. C. And DM program, also, advantageous in, that they can be implemented, within limited, time horizons. And budgets, relative, to the huge read times and financial. Risks involved in the installation, of new generation. Plants, it. Is also important, to adapt and use the successful, C and DM policies, of other jurisdictions. Moreover. It is vital, to develop, and use energy efficiency, models, to accurately, estimate energy, efficiency, potential, to determine, the most effective conservation. Policies. And to set the maximum priority, for energy, efficiency, and conservation. Based. On their estimates, of future demand the OPA, has recommended. 1820. Megawatts, as a target, for peak demand reduction to, be achieved by, 2025. After. Consultation. With stakeholder. Groups who deemed this target, too low Ontario's.
C And DM goals were eventually adjusted. To reflect a new target, of. 6300. Megawatts, of conservation. By, 2025. 1,350, megawatts, by, 2007. An extra. 1350, megawatts, by 2010. And an additional, 3,000, 600, megawatts, by, 2025. This. Target, was said by Ministry, of Energy's, Supply mix directive, which provides, direction for, preparation. Of integrated. Power system, plan IPSP. For Ontario, Power Authority. This. Target, was based on economically. Prudent and cost-effective. Conservation. And renewables, and by setting a lower priority for. Both options, in comparison. To nuclear, based. On models and estimation, by several, Ontario's. Energy, consultant, companies, and independent, agencies, Ontario. Has a saving, potential of almost twice the Ontario's. Target, for energy efficiency, the gap. Between the Ontario's. Potential. Savings and its current, target, could be the result of inadequate. Coordination. Between the Ontario, government and, OPA B lack of public information, regarding. Incentives. And energy efficient mesh, see insufficient. Long-term energy efficiency. Planning, and funding Andy lack of good institutional. Delivery, and market, transformation. The. Largest, potential for energy savings, in Ontario, has been identified, in lighting space. Heating air conditioning, manufacturing. Machinery and commercial. Equipment. According. To an assessment commissioned. By the OPA, this, potential, applies to all three electricity. Sectors, the residential, sector accounted, for one third of, energy, use in Ontario. The. OPA assessment. Suggests that there is a potential, electricity. Savings of 31%. In Ontario's. Residential. Sector, by 2015. Via lighting, and space heating upgrades. The. Commercial, sector accounts. For 39%. Of Ontario's. Total, electricity, consumption. The. OPA, assessment. Reports, a potential, savings of, 33%, in this sector mainly in interior, lighting, and cooling retrofits. The. Industrial. Sector, which includes, all manufacturing. Activities, mining. Forestry, and, construction. Accounts, for approximately, 28%. Of, electricity, use in Ontario. Based. On the OPA assessment. A 36, percent energy, savings is, possible, in this sector based on investments. In new heating ventilation. And air conditioning equipment. Topic. Government, actors, involved in conservation and, demand management the, Ontario, conservation. Bureau is a governmental. Organization. Established by, the Ontario, government as. A division, of OPA in, 2005. Its. Mandate, is to promote C, and D M programs, that defer the need to invest in new generation. And transmission, infrastructure. Programs. Managed, by the conservation, Bureau, include, low income, and social, housing initiatives. Designed to reduce electricity, consumption. By a total of 100, megawatts, in, 33,000. Homes. Savings. Rebates, which encourage, Ontario, residents to, reduce their electricity, use, by, installing, energy-efficient. Cooling and heating equipment. Demand. Response programs, that offer consumers, compensation. For curtailing, their electricity, demand, during specific times of day the Ontario, Ministry, of Energy moe is responsible. For ensuring that Ontario's. Electricity. System, functions, at the highest level, of reliability and, productivity. This. Includes, establishing energy. Efficiency, standards including. Energy, Star standards for, appliances and. Windows the, ministry, has recently begun, a program to remove t12. Tubular, 1.5. Inch fluorescent, commercial, lamps by 2011. The. Ontario, Ministry of municipal. Affairs and housing, has begun encouraging. Private sector, housing, developers, to increase, the energy efficiency standards, of, new homes, other.
Programs, Include, a three-year, review of Ontario's. Building, Code to upgrade the energy, efficiency, performance of, Ontario, buildings. Financial. Incentives, in the form of rebates, for energy efficiency, in affordable, housing units. Implementation. Of eco energy building, standards, beginning, in, 2007. The official Government. Of Canada mark associated. With the labeling, and rating of the energy consumption, or energy efficiency of. Specific, products, the office of energy efficiency, oae was, established, in April 1998. As part of Natural, Resources Canada and, is the primary federal, office for energy efficiency. Oae. Responsibilities. Include, the promotion, of energy efficiency, in major energy, sectors, industrial. Residential, commercial, and building, the provision, of energy, efficiency, information. To the public the collection, of data and publication. Of energy, efficiency, trends. Since. 2005. The Ontario, Energy Board Oh a II be put into place two mechanisms to, create incentives, for local distribution, companies. LDCs, to promote C and DM program, a lost revenue, adjustment, mechanism, lram. By which utilities, recover, all of the revenues, that they would have collected had they not promoted. Reductions, through conservation. And energy efficiency. And the shared savings mechanism. SSM, by which consumers. And utilities, share the benefits, associated with, the implementation of, Si and diem program. Since. 2009. The environmental. Commissioner, of Ontario, eco has had the statutory, responsibility. To report on the progress of activities, in Ontario, to reduce, the use or make more efficient, use of electricity. Natural gas propane, oil, and transportation. Fuels, the. Eco produces. Two-part annual, reports, on energy, conservation the. First part on the broader policy framework. Affecting, energy conservation, in, Ontario, and the second, part on the results, of initiatives, underway. Topic. Supply. Options. Electricity. Supplies, can be classified as either distributed. Or centralized, in nature. Whereas. Conventional, centralized. Generation involves. Few generation. Facilities, connected, via high-voltage transmission. Lines spanning, long distances, distributed. Generation, facilities. Are located close to the load or in. Technical speak, on the customer, side of the meter although. Not necessarily restricted. To local uses, in. This scheme distributed. Energy, sources are more numerous and, sufficiently, smaller, than central, generating, plants, so as to allow interconnection. At nearly any point in the electricity, system distributed. Generation. Sometimes. Known, as dispersed. Or embedded, generation. When referring to small-scale. Wind generation. Generally. Describes, only renewable, electricity, sources, with capacities. Less than 10 megawatts. Technologies. Often associated. With distributed. Generation, include. Cogeneration. Also. Known as combined, heat and power, CHP. Generation. As well. As micro, turbines, fuel, cells and gas generators. Used for on-site or, emergency. Backup power. Renewables. Can also, considered, distributed. Technologies. Depending. On their application. Typically. Community. Wind farms, solar photovoltaic, arrays. Geothermal. Installations. And biomass. Fueled power facilities. Are typically sufficiently. Limited, in their generation. Capacity, that they qualify as, distributed. Energy sources. Conversely. Large, hydropower, plants, and offshore, wind parks, with substantial. Production, capacities, of 50 to 100, megawatts, or more which feed into high-voltage, transmission. Grids, cannot, be considered distributed. Generation. Topic. Coal. Coal-fired. Electricity. Generation. Is, currently, inexpensive. Relative to other energy sources. In. 2005. The average price of coal power in Ontario, was C forty, six dollars per megawatt, hour compared. To eighty nine dollars per megawatt. Hour and, one hundred, and seven dollars per megawatt. Hour for, hydropower, and oil natural. Gas generation. Respectively. However. Coal is believed to cost three billion in additional health. Costs, to Ontario, every year accounting, for this it is twice as expensive as, wind Ontario's. Coal plants emit large quantities. Of greenhouse, gases, and smog causing, puritans each year the. Ontario, Clean Air Alliance, is perhaps the, loudest critic, of coal-fired generation. In, this regard, the. Latest figures from, 2005. Reported. In the Canadian, government's, national pollutant, release inventory.
And The greenhouse gas, emissions reporting. Program, show that the nante kottai narrating. Station, is the single, largest emitter, of greenhouse gases. Co2, seventeen. Million six, hundred and twenty nine thousand. Four hundred and thirty-seven, tonnes and fifth largest emitter, of air pollutants. 107. Million six hundred and eighty nine thousand. Four hundred and seventy kilograms in, Canada. Nevertheless. Thanks. In part to acid, rain controls, implement, in the 1980s. And 1990s, Cola. Missions, have been dropping, in. Total, Ontario's. Coal plants emitted 14%. 37,000, tons of all NOx, 28%. 154, thousand, tons of ore so2, and, 20%. 495. Kilograms, of or HG mercury. Emissions. In, 2003. Respectively a, cost-benefit. Analysis, released, by the provincial, government in, April, 2005. Found, that emissions, from all Ontario, coal-fired, stations. Are responsible. For up to. 668. Premature. Deaths. 928. Hospital. Admissions. 1,100. Emergency, room visits and, 330. 3600. Minor illness headaches, coughing, respiratory. Symptoms, per year new clean, coal technologies. Such. As flu, gas desulphurization. FGD, scrubbers. Faso. - removal. And selective, catalytic, reduction, SCR. For NOx can. Be used to reduce toxic. Releases, but have no effect on carbon, emissions and are expensive, to install. Testifying. Before a legislative committee. In February. 2007. Jim Hankinson, chief, executive. Of Ontario, Power Generation. Estimated. The cost of installing new, scrubbers, on Ontario's. Coal plants, between, c500. Million dollars and C 1.5. Billion dollars, as of 2007. Two of the four smokestacks, Atlantan, and two of eight stacks at the Nanticoke station. Are currently equipped with scrubbers, the. OPA, is expected, to recommend, whether or not to install scrubbers at remaining, coal facilities, in spring. 2007. In. 2007. Coal-fired. Power plants, made up about 21, percent of, Ontario's. Existing. Energy supplied, six, thousand, four hundred and thirty-four, megawatts, and nineteen, percent of total Ontario.
Electricity. Production. 30.9. Terawatt-hours. At the time Ontario. Had four coal-fired. Power plants in operation. Thunder. Bay generating. Station, no longer producing, coal since April, 2014. Location. Thunder, Bay Ontario. Total. Capacity, to units, 310. Megawatts. Atikokan. Generating. Station, no longer producing, coal since late 2012. Location. Atikokan. Ontario, between, Thunder, Bay and Canora. Total. Capacity, one unit. 215. Megawatt. Lambton. Generating, station, no longer producing, coal since late 2013. Location. Khurrana south, of Sanya. Total. Capacity, four units. 1975. Megawatt. Nanti. Cogeneration, station. No longer producing, coal since December, 2013. Location. Poor demand County, near port Dover. Total. Capacity, 8 units. 3938. M win April, 2005. The government of Ontario, closed, the Lakeview generating. Station, in Mississauga, Ontario. Representing. 1140. Megawatts, of generating. Capacity. The. Ontario, Liberals came, to power in, 2003. Promising. To phase out and replace all of the provinces coal stations, by. 2007. In. 2005. The government pushed, back the target, date to 2009. Citing. Reliability. Concerns. It. Has since revised, this plan once more maintaining. Its political commitment. But refusing, to set a specific deadline, for, a complete, phase-out. Instead. It instructed. The OPA to plan. For coal-fired, generation. In, Ontario. Be replaced, by cleaner sources, in the earliest, practical. Time frame that ensures, adequate, generating. Capacity and. Electric, system, reliability, in Ontario. Emphasis. Added. The. OPA, has subsequently, published preliminary. Plans for complete, coal phase-out, by 2014. To begin in 2011. Coal. Generators. Are expected, to be replaced, by new renewable. Energy and natural gas generation, facilities. As well as conservation. Measures. Thunder. Bay generating. Station, the last coal-fired. Electricity. Plant, in Ontario, was shut down in, April 2014. Completing, the phase-out, the. Plant has since been restored to service, fueled by biomass. Topic. Natural. Gas. Natural. Gas is a fossil fuel, composed, mainly of methane, which can be burned to release heat that is then used to produce electricity. It. Contains, very little sulfur. No ash and almost no metals, therefore, unlike, with coal heavy, metal, and Sox sulfur, dioxide and sulfur, trioxide corrosion. Is not a major concern. In. The United, States the average natural. Gas fired plant emits. 516. Kilograms. Of carbon dioxide. 0.05. Kilograms, of sulfur dioxide in. 0.8. Kilograms, of nitrogen, oxides, NOx, per megawatt, hour of energy generated. Compared. With coal natural, gas generates. About half as much carbon, dioxide 1/3. Of the nitrogen, oxides, and 1/100. Of the sulfur oxides, natural. Gases most commonly, used for heating applications. In homes and businesses but natural, gas-fired, power, generation. Is also a significant. Component of the power supply, mix accounting. For 8% of Ontario's. Power generation, capacity with.
102. Natural, gas generating. Stations. This. Capacity. Is set to increase from. 5103. Megawatts. To. 9300. Megawatts, by 2010. In, 2006. The Ontario, government directed. The OPA to use, natural gas to, meet peak time energy, demand, the. OPA, was also instructed. To develop, high efficiency. And value use, options, for natural, gas, the. OPA, has therefore decided to use natural gas for two applications. One local, area reliability. And two system, capacity. By. 2025. Installed. Natural, gas and cogeneration. Capacity. Is targeted, to increase, from the current four. Thousand, nine hundred and, seventy, six megawatts, to eleven, thousand, megawatts. Roughly. Twenty seven percent of, system, generation. Capacity. That. Said due to its predominant use only, in high-value, energy applications, natural, gas is only expected, to account, for six percent of Ontario's. Overall, electricity. Production. Topic. Cogeneration. Cogeneration. Or, combined, heat and power, CHP. Refers, to the concurrent, generation. Of power and heat from the same energy source, the. Heat is then used in local applications. Such as heating homes. Cogeneration. Can. Be applied to any fuel which is combusted. For energy. Fossil. Fuels biomass. And biogas can, all be used in CHP. Plants. Transporting. Heat over long distances, is impractical. So cogeneration, plants. Are usually, small and located. Close to the energy, road hence. Cogeneration. Is, inherently, linked, to distributed. Generation, the. Urban location, of CHP, plants. Makes them very compatible, with clean burning fuels, such as natural gas. The. Health concerns associated, with, other fossil, fuels seek, or above make them less suitable, for areas with high population. Densities. Cogeneration. Can. Dramatically, increase the efficiency. Of fuel use as 48. To 64, percent, of the energy from conventional, combustion. Can be recovered as heat while only 25. To 30. 7% is, converted, into power, the. Combined, efficiency of, heat and power use can be up to 91%. High. Efficiencies. Translate. Into much lower fuel costs as well as much lower greenhouse, gas and other emissions. There. Are 110. CHP. Generating. Plants, currently, in operation, in Ontario, with a total, capacity of, approximately. 2,300. Megawatts of. These. 82, burn natural gas and the rest use biomass. Only. 50, of these facilities are connected. To the grid see, Simon, phrases cogeneration, database. The. Ontario, Power Authority. Anticipates. That the contribution. Of cogeneration, to, electricity, conservation. Will be between 47. And, 265. Megawatts. Depending. Upon how, aggressively. It is pursued, in Ontario. However. These projections, are controversial, as there is still much debate about the real-life potential.
Of Widespread, cogeneration. Projects. The. Request, for proposals, was sent out by the OPA, in, 2005. For up to 1000, megawatts, of new cogeneration, as, a, result. Seven, new CHP. Generating. Stations, are currently being developed in, Ontario, under contracts. Executed. In, 2006. With a combined, total capacity. Of, 414. Megawatts. Topic. Nuclear. Nuclear. Power accounts. For almost half of Ontario's. Power generation, the. Government, plans to maintain, nuclear, powers, role in energy generation through, to 2025. Ontario. Currently, has 18 nuclear, units, in operation. These, reactors, amount to eleven thousand, four hundred megawatts. Of generation. Capacity and. Are located, at three sites Pickering. Bruce, and Darlington. Approximately. One half of Ontario's, power was, generated. From nuclear energy, sources. In, 2005. The Canadian, Energy Research Institute. Kerry prepared, a report for the Canadian, Nuclear Association, in. 2004. Comparing. Environmental. Impacts, of nuclear, generation, to, other baseload generation technologies. In Ontario. They. Found nuclear, power to be almost cost, comparable. With coal generation. However. Groups, such as the Pembina, Institute, and the Ontario, Clean, Air Alliance, criticized, nuclear, power because of the impact, of uranium, mining operations. The long-term effects, of radioactive, waste and the potential, terrorism, and disaster, risks of nuclear energy as, a december. 2004. There were more than 1 million, 700. Thousand, used fuel bundles, stored on-site at, both operational. And decommissioned. Nuclear generating. Stations, around Ontario nuclear. Facilities, have long lead times for both environmental. And other approvals. As well as actual, construction. Ontario's. Nuclear, history is, also checkered, with budget overruns and delays in new build and refurbished, plants. Nuclear. Has, high capital, costs, and lead times but low operational, costs, making it suitable only for base Road applications. In. Comparison. Natural. Gas plants, have short lead times but high operational, and fuel costs. However. Recently. A range of economic factors, have, had a major impact on the cost of nuclear power, groups. Such as the Ontario, Clean Air Alliance, are quick to point doubt that fluctuations. In uranium prices, have, made operational. Costs associated, with nuclear generation. Rise, higher than those of natural, gas plants, and renewables. The. OPA, has been directed, by the government to, use nuclear energy to, meet the base road of energy demand in Ontario, but that nuclear, generation, capacity. Should not exceed, 14,000. Megawatts. The. Result, is that nuclear, is projected. To make up approximately. 37, percent of generation. Capacity in, Ontario. And produce 50, percent of the power in, 2025. Similar. To its role in the current supply, mix to achieve this mix more nuclear units, will need to either be built or refurbished.
As Most of the reactors currently. In service, will exceed their useful, lifetime before, 2020. In. Response, the OPA has entered, into an agreement with, Bruce Power to refurbish two units at Bruce which are anticipated. To add. 1540. Megawatts, of generating, capacity by. 2009. Bruce. Power also, plans to refurbish, a third unit in future, the Auditor, General, of Ontario released. A report on the 5th of April, 2007. Criticizing. The high costs, associated with, the Bruce Power refurbishment. Agreement. Ontario. Power Generation. OPG. Is currently, conducting an environmental. Assessment for refurbishment. Of four operational. Units at Pickering, B. Topic. Renewables. As a, strategy. To cut down greenhouse, gas emissions, the Ontario, government is, planning to phase out coal-fired, electricity. Generating. Plants, and increase, the proportion of, electricity generated. From renewable sources. As well as promoting, strategies. To reduce electricity demand. Through CDM. It, is. Estimated that 30 percent of Ontario, electricity. Demand, will be produced, from these sources by 2025. Compared. To fossil fuel sources generating. Electricity, from, renewable, sources such as water wind, and biomass, has, the following advantages. Flow. Environmental. And health impacts, due to reduced, emissions, of greenhouse gases. Low. Operating, costs, leading, to row heating, and electricity, costs. Low. Security and safety risks, relative to conventional energy. Sources such. As fossil, fuels fired, or nuclear, generations. Reduce. Dependency. On imported fuels. Which create, energy security. The. Distributed. Nature of renewables. Allows reduction. Of costs, and losses of transmission. And distribution of. Centrally, generated, power. Topic. Hydroelectricity. By. 1950. Most, major hydropower. Sites, in Ontario, had already been, developed to generate, electricity. Today. They are approximately. 2,000. Sites particularly. In Northern Ontario that. May be utilized to, generate electricity. In the future, the. OPA, is still completing, feasibility. And implementation. Studies, for many of these sites hydropower.
Currently. Accounts, for approximately, 21%, of, the current electricity. Supply, in Ontario. This. Capacity, is estimated. To rise to 30 percent, by 2025. As new sites are added to the current installed, capacity. And the existing, ones are refurbished. Particular. Emphasis will be placed on developing, hydroelectric. Plants, with large storage, capacities. That can be used to provide dispatchable. Energy, which are equally capable of, meeting peak, electricity. Demand, or offsetting, the intermittent, nature of other renewable, sources, such as wind. Topic. Wind. Ontario. Especially. The southern part has abundant wind, potential, that can be harnessed to generate renewable, electricity. It. Is estimated that Ontario. Has an area of about 300, thousand square kilometres within the reach of the transmission. System that can be used for generating electricity, from, wind energy, this. Area, approximate. The size of Germany which is the leading country, for producing, electricity from, wind energy, if. Ontario, could intensively, use wind energy like Germany, wind based electricity. Would contribute, up to 13 percent of the provinces, demand. Generating. Electricity, from, wind energy is, considered, cost-effective. In southern Ontario because. Of closeness to transmission, lines and Road centers wind may be considered, an unreliable source, of electricity, due, to its intermittent. Nature, however. Integrating. Wind energy with, hydroelectric. Systems, or biomass, ensures, stable renewable. Electricity, supply. Integrations. Of wind and hydro, have been successfully. Practiced, in the state of Oregon and may be used, to provide reliable, electricity. In Canada. In. 2015. Canada's, installed, wind capacity was. Eleven thousand, two hundred and, five megawatts, with ontario leading, the country in installed, capacity. At four thousand, three hundred and sixty, one megawatts. Opa. Estimates. This capacity, will increase to, five thousand, megawatts, by, 2025. But other studies estimate, the capacity, to reach 7,000. Megawatts by, 2020. And 8,000, megawatts, by 200 xxxx. Topic. Biomass. Biomass. Refers. To organic. Matter from plants, or animals, that can be converted to energy. Bioenergy. In turn is any form of energy heat, or electricity, generated. From biomass. The. Development, of a bioenergy. Industry in, Ontario faces. Many challenges including. But not limited to, high, costs, owing to the small-scale, nature, of technologies. Used to convert biomass to, energy, and environmental, issues, eg declining, soil productivity, and increased, fertilizer, and pesticides, use related to intensive, harvesting, of biomass, for energy production. That. Said research, that has been carried out to address, some of these concerns suggests. That the adoption of sustainable management. Practices, that aim at maintaining, ecological. Functions, of forests and agro ecosystems. May sustain biomass. Production, without, adverse impacts, to the environment the. Dual role of biomass, as a substitute. For fossil, fuels and as a sink for atmospheric. Carbon is the main advantage for, its use in energy, generation. Bioenergy. Production from. Sustainable. Biomass sources. Is considered, to be carbon, neutral because co2 emitted. During combustion, or natural, degradation processes. Is captured, by growing, plants, although. Biomass. Based integrated. Gasification, combined. Cycle, IGCC. And combined, heat and power, CHP. With carbon, capture storage CCS. May be promising, technologies. For reducing, GHG emissions. From electricity, generating. Plants, these technologies. Are small-scale, and, not well developed in Ontario. The. Movement, in favour of generating. Bioenergy, from municipal, waste appears, to be a strategy, to mitigate trash, management, many municipal, landfills, are approaching, capacity. There. Is a potential. To generate income from methane emissions, from municipal, waste. According. To the ipsp, a total, of. 1,250. Megawatts, may be generated. From biomass, by 2027. But only. 856. Megawatts, has been considered, in plans thus far other. Reports, suggests, that biomass has, the potential, to produce about, fourteen, point seven terawatt-hours, two, thousand, four hundred and fifty megawatts, of electricity, and, forty 7.0. Terawatt, hours of heat in ten to twenty years time at present, forest, biomass, is the main source of biomass, used for energy production followed. By agriculture. Biomass, as well as municipal, solid waste and, wastewater.
Forest. Biomass, includes, harvest, residues, /, residuals. From silviculture. Operations. Wood mill residues, peat and short, rotation woody. Plantations. Such as willow plantations. A large. Part of this can be found in northern ontario where. Remote communities, may benefit, from relying, on energy, sources less, dependent, on a connection, to the larger, provincial, grid a, feasibility. Study for generating, electricity, from, forest, biomass, peat, or municipal, waste at the Attic oak and generating, station, in northwestern. Ontario is currently, underway. Agricultural. Biomass includes. Biogas, from manure crop, and animal residues. As well as energy crops such as switchgrass and reed canarygrass. Ontario. Has about six hundred and thirty thousand, hectares, of less productive, agricultural. Land than could be dedicated to energy crop farming, with a production, capacity of five point five eight million, tons of biomass, 103. Peter joules of energy per, year. Municipal. Biomass, sources include. Solid waste and municipal wastewater. Decomposition. Of biomass, produces, gas that is 50% methane. And 50%. Carbon dioxide. Thus. Conversion. Of landfill, gases to energy, can reduce overall, environmental. Impacts. EPIK solar, and geothermal. Southern. Ontario in particular, Toronto. Receives, as much summer solar radiation. As the city of Miami Florida, indicating. That Ontario. Has sufficient, solar energy, that can be harnessed to generate electricity, or heat. Unlike. Solar energy, geothermal heat, pumps, GHP produce. Heat ene
2019-07-07