Toronto is a nuclear city - and a media centre

While the Toronto Star was beating up on the National Post, and vice versa, the Globe and Mail's Marcus Gee wrote Like it or not, Toronto is a nuclear city. Gee's column is that rare write in Toronto that gets facts right.

Such as:

Wind, solar and bioenergy still account for just 9 per cent of Ontario’s electricity output despite the provincial government’s bungled, vastly expensive effort to promote them.

I hope all read Like it or not, Toronto is a nuclear city, but the rest of this column is going to be about media in Toronto's steady production of poorly researched material - just using the 9 % figure.

To start... here's a graphic from a segment of The Agenda with Steve Paikin interviewing newcomer head of Ontario Power Generation Jeffrey Lyash:

I happened to enjoy this interview, but I've been critical of Steve Paikin in the recent past and the graphic shows why. The graphic says, "Source: Ontario Energy Report, July-September 2015" - but that wouldn't be notable on the television during the program. The ontarioenergyreport.ca website does currently show prominently, on its home page, these percentages for 2015's third quarter "Transmission Grid-Connected Generation Output" - which is only a subset of "Ontario's Electricity Supply", and only for the quarter of the year when industrial wind turbines are least productive. If The Agenda's researchers went a step further, to the full supply report linked to following the percentages., they's have found the source table for the full year's data (2015), where wind was 5.8% of the annual "Transmission Grid-Connected Generation Output" subset, and solar and biofuel another 0.5%.

That one step further is how far the Toronto Star's assembled team went in January while assembling Q & A for Ontario’s hydro system.

Too much, or not too much

Too much, or not too much, that is a question for electricity system operators leading to other question

2 stories on electricity generation capacity, both from February 11th:
NY faces power shortage, but not enough to save FitzPatrick nuclear plant

SCRIBA, N.Y. – New York power grid operators say there will be a 325-megawatt shortage of generating capacity after theFitzPatrick nuclear plant and seven other major power plants close. But the report offers no grounds for state regulators to require FitzPatrick to stay open.
Instead, the New York Independent System Operator announced it will solicit proposals for projects to fill the anticipated 325-megawatt gap. Solutions could include new power plants, transmission upgrades or demand reduction programs. The new capacity needs to be in place by 2019, the NYISO said in a report released today.

SO-NE Capacity Auction Secures Sufficient Power System Resources, At a Lower Price, for Grid Reliability in 2019-2020:

Holyoke, MA—February 11, 2016—New England’s annual capacity auction concluded Monday with sufficient resources to meet demand in 2019-2020, at a lower price, and with more than 1,400 megawatts (MW) of new generating capacity that will help replace recently retired and retiring generators. The auction is run by ISO New England Inc. to procure the resources that will be needed to meet projected demand three years in the future.
... “Developers were drawn to the New England marketplace because the price of capacity supports construction of new resources,” continued van Welie. “It’s important to have a capacity market that places an appropriate value on the product to maintain an adequate supply. This auction procured the resources needed to keep the lights on in New England at a price lower than last year’s auction and, in fact, lower than the estimated cost of building a new power plant. More than 850 megawatts of new generating capacity cleared in the Greater Boston, Southeast Massachusetts and Rhode Island zone where the resources are needed most.”
...
1,450 MW of imports from New York and Canada
•The auction closed for resources within New England after four rounds of competitive bidding at $7.03/kWmonth, at the point on the demand curve where there were still sufficient resources to meet demand. The clearing price will be paid to all resources in both capacity zones in the region. [Clarification] Imports from Quebec over Phase II and Highgate also cleared at $7.03/kW-month.
...
• The auction continued for a fifth round for 181 MW of New Brunswick imports, which will receive $4.00/kWmonth. New York imports totaling 1,044 MW, which cleared in the fourth round, will receive a price of $6.26/kW-month.

sooo... 72% of the “1,450 MW of imports from New York and Canada” were bid in from New York, at a price I believe is about 1/2 the non-fuel cost of a simple cycle gas generation plant - and is clearly less than other capacity resources bid into the New England market - yet New York state is looking around for resources for the same period.

How is Ontario not in this game?

The imperceptible impact of carbon pricing

The editorial board of the New York Times has declared Proof That a Price on Carbon Works:

Lawmakers who oppose taking action to lower greenhouse gas emissions by putting a price on carbon often argue that doing so would hurt businesses and consumers. But the energy policies adopted by some American states and Canadian provinces demonstrate that those arguments are simply unfounded.
Around the world, nearly 40 nations, including the 28-member European Union, and many smaller jurisdictions are engaged in some form of carbon pricing. In this hemisphere, British Columbia, Quebec, California and nine Northeastern states have raised the cost of burning fossil fuels without damaging the economy. Alberta, Canada’s biggest oil and gas producer, and Ontario have said they will adopt similar policies.
...British Columbia, which is home to 4.7 million people, has placed the highest price on emissions in North America, taxing a ton of carbon emitted at 30 Canadian dollars, or about $21. By comparison, emission permits in California and Quebec are trading at about $13 a ton. And permits sold for $7.50 a ton in a December auction in the Northeastern trading system known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. That system covers emissions from power plants in nine states that include Connecticut, New York and Massachusetts.
These actions deserve applause. But their real value may lie in providing a template for the rest of the world.

The New York Times editorial board is, with one exception, citing actions that have not taken place yet as evidence contrary arguments "are simply unfounded." Is there a topic outside of global warming/greenhouse gas emissions that inspires such intellectual laziness? [1]

Cuomo's trouble-standards

“Getting the facts and understanding them are critically important to serving the public interest...False hysteria is not.” - Rob Astorino

The widely reported big news in the U.S.A. yesterday, as the Supreme Court decided to put the Clean Power Plan on hold until it decides on the legalities (reports from Reuters and AP).

I don't think that's particularly big news because I'm neither a fan of the plan nor confident it will survive the political regime change coming before implementation dates hit.

A couple of things I do find interesting are motivations to clean the electricity generating sector, and anti-nuclear hysteria.

Cuomo strikes contrasting tones at Hoosick Falls and Indian Point

While Cuomo was "deeply concerned" about the leak at Indian Point, he seemed more concerned about untoward panic among residents at Hoosick Falls, despite the fact that the water in Hoosick Falls has been poisoned, and the water near Indian Point is safe to consume.

It already has been verified that the water in Hoosick Falls exceeds federal pollution standards, by at least four or five times what the Environmental Protection Agency has said is safe for humans to consume. What’s more, the toxic chemical PFOA is definitely in the water of Hoosick Falls and the people there have likely been drinking it for years, possibly generations. PFOA, or perfluorooctanoic acid, has been linked to unusual cancers and other life-threatening conditions, and medical professionals in town have documented high rates of cancers. 

The state waited months to take significant action in Hoosick Falls, and assured residents as recently as December that the water was safe to drink. The state Department of Health, along with the village’s elected leaders, have been widely criticized by residents as well as some lawmakers, who are now considering holding legislative hearings on the state's actions in Hoosick Falls.

And though the radioactivity levels in the water near Indian Point spiked upwards in recent weeks, it is still 1,000 times below federal limits. The wells that tested positive for elevated levels of radium (in one case it was a 65,000 percent increase) are designed for monitoring and not human consumption. The tritium, a naturally occuring radioactive isotope, found in the water at Indian Point will likely never reach a source of drinking water.

Read Scott Waldman's full report at POLITICO New York.

The report includes news New York Governor Cuomo the 2nd has already approved one fossil fueled generator to replace and Indian Point nuclear and a second one is moving through planning.

Sierra Club cuddles up to coal

Some people never learn.

An article on the Sierra Club's latest coalition begins:

How does one of the country’s biggest environmental groups decide to partner with one of the country's biggest coal-burning utilities?

That isn't the question people familiar with the Sierra Club's history would ask. From a Time report: 

...between 2007 and 2010 the Sierra Club accepted over $25 million in donations from the gas industry, mostly from Aubrey McClendon, CEO of Chesapeake Energy—one of the biggest gas drilling companies in the U.S. and a firm heavily involved in fracking—to help fund the Club’s Beyond Coal campaign.

How do they decide to partner up?

Money, I presume.

not professional

"20 years of schoolin' and they put you on the day shift" - Bob Dylan

Perhaps the ability to tolerate decades of formal education is the only thing a professional title indicates.

Recent stories that caught my attention include the heaving of the Nipigon River Bridge, the disinterest in recognizing management failures at Toronto Hydro, the intimidating behavior of the Attorney General of Vermont, the disinterest in the parameters of responsibility of Ontario's new Environmental Commissioner, and just because that annoyed me I'll add one more instance of lazy green economics.

I first commented on the split in the new Nipigon River Bridge on Facebook when it occurred. If you're not familiar with it, a very snazzy bridge was built on the one road across Canada, but it now appears it wasn't built for a Canadian winter. In one news story we made the farcical part of South Parks "follow the only road" song the lyric indicating the road is "to code". I wrote on the bridge again this past weekend, inspired by a letter to an editor that seemed to be written by an engineer, but not signed as a professional engineer.

Broken Bridge: Caring isn’t competence

image from the CBC

...it’s clear ascetics and a heavy weighting of environmental issues were significant contributors to the choice of a bridge design not tried in a similar environment in the past.
I think it’s equally clear that the concerns should be on the design, engineering standards and certification bodies, at least as equally as materials.

I find it particularly unsettling that Michael Hogan’s letter to the editor isn’t signed by Dr. Hogan (as it could be), with the professional engineer designation. It’s disconcerting if the letter writer is not an engineer, but it’s more disconcerting if engineers do not have a professional concern about engineers’ role in the failure of the only road allowing cross-country travel.

A professional engineer advised me part of becoming an engineer is swearing not to bad-mouth other engineers, which explains why the excellent letter to the editor wasn't signed, but could also explains why the search seems to be on for a scapegoat, more than a cause.

I understand the desire of the engineering body to handle things internally, but I think they need to figure out a better communication strategy - perhaps one including the announcement of a review.

Eagles Win: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Gives Up Fight for 30-Year Take Permits

“The eagle-killing rule was a bad idea from the day it was proposed”

In Victory for Eagles, USFWS Gives Up Fight for 30-Year Take Permits:

Graphic from Ontario Wind Resistance page

Eagles just scored a big victory in the courts. This week the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service dropped an appeal it was pursuing in support of 30-year “take” permits that allow wind farms and other industries to disturb and kill Bald and Golden Eagles, as long as they take steps to protect the raptors. The appeal was part of a legal battle over the agency’s 2013 move to extend the length of these take permits’ validity by 25 years. 

The 2013 rule extended five-year take permits, administered under 2009’s Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, to a maximum length of 30 years with periodic check-ins. But in 2015 a federal judge sent the rule back to the drawing board, saying that the agency had not assessed the possible environmental impacts of extending the permit length as required by law. 

The government initially appealed this court decision, but now has dropped its appeal. While USFWS did not provide a reason why they were dropping the appeal, the extended permit period has been met with substantial criticism. When it was first introduced, the proposal was criticized for allowing companies to self-report deaths and giving too much leeway to harm birds.

Read the entire article at audubon.org 

Somewhat related, I saw many accolades for a wonderful graphic developed at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology.

Are electric cars and residential solar seriously green?

Some necessary cynicism about many things "green"

Ross McKitrick: The electric car is dead, executed by Al Gore and his environmental allies

As reported by Bloomberg news on Jan. 7, even as U.S. auto sales hit a record high in 2015, demand for electric vehicles fell by 17 per cent. Automakers are already taking losses on these vehicles, which they are forced to sell to comply with misguided government mandates. Despite the implicit subsidy, consumers can do the math and prefer the savings, convenience and reliability of ordinary gasoline-powered cars. 

So who engineered this calamity? I suggest (only a little tongue-in-cheek) that it was none other than Al Gore, along with his allies in the environmental movement. In the aftermath of Gore’s 2006 global warming doom-flick An Inconvenient Truth, and his massively-funded worldwide policy advocacy, governments around the world embraced renewables, especially wind and solar energy. Everywhere this has been tried, the result has been soaring electricity prices. You won’t get people into electric cars if they can’t afford to plug them in.

Read Ross McKitrick's entire column at the Financial Post.

Citing this cynicism is necessary as I live in Ontario: I've abandoned heating and cooking with electricity because it became far too punitive financially, and because there seems to be no foresight with electric vehicle proponents - specifically in terms of paying for the roads required for any vehicle to have utility.

From Georgia, U.S.A.,EV sales in Georgia plummet after tax credit repealed

A pure market's pricing problem

This story from Australia in interesting as it presents the challenge of a renewables heavy jurisdiction attempting to run a pure market - which necessitates generators that run infrequently recovering costs through very high rates when they do.

SA government in energy market crisis talks with industry, suppliers

The South Australian government is considering intervening in the National Electricity Market after its commitment to renewable energy has generated sharp spikes in power prices that threaten its economic development strategy.
South Australian Treasurer Tom Koutsantonis called a crisis meeting of energy users and suppliers today to deal with sharp rises and falls in wholesale electricity prices that threaten the redevelopment of a Port Pirie lead and zinc smelter to make metals for solar panels and mobile phones, even with a $291 million government subsidy.
The volatility in wholesale prices – caused mostly by the state's reliance on wind power and the ability of coal and gas power stations to charge high prices when the wind drops – is creating havoc for industry in the state, which is one of the country's most economically depressed.
...
South Australia has endured several episodes of sharply rising electricity prices, and prices for ancillary or grid-stabilising services, since July, with prices soaring above $2000/MWh and at times hitting the $13,800/MWh market limit.

Read more: http://www.afr.com/news/politics/sa-government-in-energy-market-crisis-talks-with-industry-suppliers-20151214-gln55j#ixzz3xc8e4p4k 

Most jurisdictions find ways to get industry preferential pricing. One that does, via it's EEG mechanism, is Germany. While Germany's Energiewende is often reported as a world leader in growing renewables, the reality could be it's leading in something entirely different:

Bloomberg reports:

...clean energy investment in Germany dropped to its lowest level in a decade with USD 10.6 bn invested.
German reduction in small-scale PV FiT has led to lower rooftop solar build out
“The slump was mainly driven by a drop in small-scale solar investment and utility-scale wind investment,” comments BNEF Associate, Luke Mills.
“Reduction in the small-scale solar feed-in tariff (FiT) has led to lower rooftop solar build out. This, along with decreasing equipment prices, has impacted the total amount invested.”
“For wind, the current wind FiT does not work well with the current space constraints in Germany as projects in less windy areas are not adequately supported. Repowering has become an important role in the German market, but it has not taken off quite the way everyone had hoped due to planning regulations and restrictions.”

That report might not be entirely correct on repowering. AGEB shows Germany's wind output up a spectacular 50% in 2015, the highest  annual increase since 2002. However, solar showed its slowest growth since AGEB starting reporting on it. Overall the Bloomberg tracking of Germany's annual investment is likely a good indicator that some economic analysis has continued following the German Council of Energy Experts flagging the excessive costs in their 2011 annual report.

In case I missed it, one report worth reading from recent months was J.P. Morgan's A Brave New World: Deep De-Carbonization of Electricity Grids.

Nuclear Ontario: Government approves Darlington refurbishment

“This morning when the sun rose, it brought with it a very good day. A good day for the residents of Clarington, for Pickering, a good day for the residents of Durham. As a matter of fact, a good day for all of Ontario with this announcement”

The quote is from Clarington Mayor Adrian Foster, of the host community for the Darlington nuclear generating station (NGS). 10,500

Ontario Power Generation (OPG) had already laid out many of the cost aspects in its financial reporting, and the big surprise on the day was probably re the other OPG nuclear generating station.

Ontario Moving Forward with Nuclear Refurbishment at Darlington and Pursuing Continued Operations at Pickering to 2024:

Ontario is moving forward with nuclear refurbishment at Darlington Generating Station, securing 3,500 megawatts of affordable, reliable, and emission free power.
... 

Ontario Power Generation (OPG) is on track to begin refurbishment of the first unit at Darlington in October 2016. To best protect Ontario ratepayers and ensure OPG delivers refurbishment on-time and on-budget, the government has established off-ramps that require OPG to obtain government approval prior to proceeding with each of the remaining unit refurbishments. The budget for the project is $12.8 billion, about $1.2 billion less than originally projected by OPG, and all four units are scheduled for completion by 2026. 

The Province has also approved OPG's plan to pursue continued operation of the Pickering Generating Station beyond 2020 up to 2024

...
The average cost of power from Darlington nuclear units post-refurbishment is estimated to range between $72/MWh and $81 MWh, or 7 and 8 cents per kilowatt hour.

The Pickering NGS news took me a little by surprise. OPG's news release added detail:

OPG will work with the Ministry of Energy, the Independent Electricity System Operator and the [Ontario Energy Board] to pursue continued operation of the Pickering Station to 2024. All six units would operate until 2022; two units would then shut down and four units would operate to 2024. Extending Pickering’s operation would ensure a reliable, clean source of base load electricity during the Darlington and initial Bruce refurbishments.

The Bruce NGS refurbishment was announced a little over a month ago.
Bruce and Darlington NGS have a combined capacity of ~10,500 megawatts, and complete refurbishments of both locations would allow nuclear to remain the dominant form of generation in the province for another 4 decades.