Energy useage

[K-133]

Frugality in energy usage will not save you from being ripped off.
Look at my usage data posted for last few months up-thread.
My usage is in the bottom 2% of households in my city, and it is not a small city by any measure.
There is only one household that is in a lower tier of usage and I'm certain that either those folks were away on vacation last month or that house is unoccupied.
Inspite of that, my bills are 30% higher than the same period last year for the same tier of consumption.
There is no escape...the end is nigh.

My bills are 10% higher. I've paid an extra $5-6/month since all of the complaining started.

[HaroldCrump]

The reason my bills (and thousands of other households') have shot up so much is because of frugality in the first place.
My usage was already optimized for time-of-use.
And has been for many years - it is just common sense to use more during off-peak times and less during peak times.

By instituting TOU pricing, the optimizers have been punished.
The HST, debt retirement charge and the base rate increase has added triple and quadruple whammies.

A 10% increase in your case is probably tolerable but my question still is why even that.
10% is higher than our reported rate of inflation (which the govt. still claims is under 2%), it is higher than the GDP growth rate, higher than wage growth rate, higher than typical investments returns, etc.
As a result, energy usage is eating up a bigger share of household budgets as a result of these regulatory changes.

[carverman]

10% is higher than our reported rate of inflation (which the govt. still claims is under 2%), it is higher than the GDP growth rate, higher than wage growth rate, higher than typical investments returns, etc.
As a result, energy usage is eating up a bigger share of household budgets as a result of these regulatory changes.

If you believe that our current "official" rate of inflation is 2%...you may be
interested in a gold mine for sale in the Florida swamp land.

Oil prices and gov't taxes are pushing up the real rate of inflation to closer
to 5% per year. If you don't believe that, think of what a house would have cost to buy 10 years ago...
or your hydro bill back then...or gas at the pumps (around 60c a litre)...
..now fast forward to what is going to happen in the next 5-10 years with the financial mess all levels of gov't have created
on our behalf.

Gasoline? $1.50 + a liter (by the fall?) , and it isn't going to go down that much even if the Libyan crisis is resolved eventually.
The current price at the pump (per litre) has at least 30.1cents in taxes.
As the world oil price per barrel of oil goes up, so does the price per liter and so do the taxes collected by various gov'ts. The HST is an inflationary tax.

But it seems it is never enough!

[andrewf]

So, the inflation rate that the Bank of Canada uses is called Core CPI. It excludes energy and food because these are very volatile in price. If the BoC tried to use these other prices in their inflation targeting, you'd see much more volatile interest rates, lower economic growth and higher interest rates over all. Is that desirable?

You guys have to decide what you want.

[the-royal-mail]

We want the truth. Inflation is very, very high. You cannot exclude energy and food for the simple reason these are things that everyone needs and the price of these pushes everything up high. Gas is $1.15 this morning. Hydro going up dramatically. Housing prices and property taxes going up with each passing month/year. Crazy. There is no economic strength to support this type of inflation. Published inflation stats are meaningless.

[HaroldCrump]

^ correct, TRM. The govt. has many motivations for understating inflation numbers, none of which is good for the public.
Many social benefits like OAS, GIS, CPP, RRSP limits, etc. are indexed to inflation.
Also, reporting a higher rate of inflation will force them to increase interest rates and thus run the risk of a housing market correction, something they don't want at all.
The housing market is a cash cow for the govt. esp since the HST.
Higher home prices bring in increased revenues for the govt. all round.
It is totally nuts to exclude food and energy but include garbage consumer goods like new cars.

[andrewf]

But, do you people realise the implication of what you propose? You probably wouldn't like the result. We'd get wild swings in interest rates, and the Bank would frequently miss its inflation target by wide margins. It's simply not practical or desirable to try to keep broad inflation at 2% a year. When oil prices fall, like they did in 2009, would you have wanted the Bank to flood the Canadian economy with hundreds of billions, maybe a trillion plus in quantitative easing to try and get a 2% broad inflation number for that year? In 2008, when oil prices spiked, would you have wanted the Bank to crank interest rates up to 10, 15, 20% the ensure the Canadian economy cratered enough so that other price falls offset the rise in oil price to deliver 2%? That roller coaster ride would have left us far worse off than we are now targeting core inflation.

Starting to see why this might not be desirable?


In the long run, food and energy prices tend to track core CPI with a lot of noise along the way. If it didn't, the food/fuel basket would eat a larger and larger share of our incomes (but, for instance, we spend less on food now, as a % of income, than we did 50 years ago).

It drives me crazy that you're accusing the government and the Bank of Canada of malice and conspiracy when you don't have all the facts or even understand why they chose the CPI basket they did for inflation targeting.

[K-133]

I have to be honest Harold, overall I perceive you to be a bit looney. You seem very pre-occupied with things which you claim have affected thousands, while ignoring the millions of other voices.

And though I don't really expect you to care about how I perceive you, you must recognize that if you wish to impact change, you will need to create a more constructive perception of your goals. If your only goal is to complain, then all power to you. I ask you to be forthcoming if this is true.

What concerns you about inflation? Would you prefer 0% inflation?
What solutions do you propose to better manage your concerns with inflation?


The housing market is a cash cow for the govt. esp since the HST.

Please explain.



Higher home prices bring in increased revenues for the govt. all round.

Generally this hard to disagree with - but your representation of it is so vague that there is no point from which to begin. With respect to the HST, it applies only to new construction homes, and only to the amount over $400,000.



It is totally nuts to exclude food and energy but include garbage consumer goods like new cars.

I agree with this.

There should more relatable inflation categories, one for necessary items such as food, certain energies, etc...

Another for discretionary items.

I also agree with Andrewf as I like to look at the big picture, and have faith in the law of averages.

[HaroldCrump]

andrewf, have you taken a look at the M3 numbers anytime recently?
Check it out.
It's grown over 35% in the last 3 years, I believe.
And I'm sure you know what the implications of a massive M3 expansion are.

I'm not suggesting any kind of conspiracy theory - the numbers are all there for anyone to see.
Is the BoC aware of these numbers? Absolutely.
I'm not suggesting either that the BoC keep changing rates every Monday morning.
However, I believe that all indicators are pointing that a rate increase is long overdue.

K-133, you are of course entitled to your opinion.
This issue is close to me and impacts me.
You have already stated on a previous post that the subject of this thread (although we have deviated from it) does not impact you and in fact has impacted you positively by slightly lowering your bills.
So clearly this is not a matter of focus for you.

[andrewf]

M3 is not a measure of price inflation. Yes, it's grown--that's a function of credit easing. BoC shouldn't be setting interest rates based solely on M3 anyway. Inflation is firmly anchored at its target, and I'm skeptical we'll see large upside surprised as your theory would suggest. Time will tell.

[carverman]

So, the inflation rate that the Bank of Canada uses is called Core CPI. It excludes energy and food because these are very volatile in price. If the BoC tried to use these other prices in their inflation targeting, you'd see much more volatile interest rates, lower economic growth and higher interest rates over all. Is that desirable?

You guys have to decide what you want.

Yes, Andrew, I understand that BoC/StatsCan don't include volatile commodities, such as energy
.... (and the price of beer...which is going up as well as food)and other staples..like insurance etc.
(Ahem...the "claimed "beer barley shortage is a good excuse, I suppose.) Crop failures due to
bad weather etc.

But food/energy (gasoline/heating/electricity) form a major component of
the average household budget...which is eroding at a much faster rate because
of additional gov't taxes on energy.

So yes, one can say, inflation is kept under control (but not wrestled to the
ground as Pierre Trudeau was going to do in his tenure as PM), but the
average family can't go by what the gov't is telling us officially. There
are many factors that push up the cost of goods and commodities..and
gov't taxes are just one of these.

[carverman]

We want the truth. Inflation is very, very high. You cannot exclude energy and food for the simple reason these are things that everyone needs and the price of these pushes everything up high. Gas is $1.15 this morning. Hydro going up dramatically. Housing prices and property taxes going up with each passing month/year. Crazy. There is no economic strength to support this type of inflation. Published inflation stats are meaningless.

It was announced this morning that the OEB just approved OPG's rate
increase of 1%....now who thinks that will probably be transformed into
another 1 cent increase per kwh?

[carverman]

^ correct, TRM. The govt. has many motivations for understating inflation numbers, none of which is good for the public.
Many social benefits like OAS, GIS, CPP, RRSP limits, etc. are indexed to inflation.

Yes, they are indexed to the "official CPi" , but in essence the real inflation
is running much higher, so anybody on pension (like myself) is seeing
their pension income steadily eroding year after year with respect to
buying power.



Also, reporting a higher rate of inflation will force them to increase interest rates and thus run the risk of a housing market correction, something they don't want at all.

So instead, they are adjusting the downpayment requirements from
(5% to 15%?) to make up for that. This way, they figure if someone
has 30K saved up for a downpayment on a $200k house (and there
isn't too many of those around..but I'm using it as an example), that
will allow the housing market to look after itself without adjusting interest
rates..if you have an existing mortage, you just renew the term and continue
paying..if your shopping for a house, you better have some savings put aside
or buy some lottery tickets..and hope you get lucky.



The housing market is a cash cow for the govt. esp since the HST.


And we mustn't forget the nice chunk of equity they are extracting from
resale homes...13% HST on the real estate commission.

$300K home = 6% =$18,000 commission and $2340 Hst on the commission.



Higher home prices bring in increased revenues for the govt. all round.
It is totally nuts to exclude food and energy but include garbage consumer goods like new cars.

The gov'ts like to play a numbers game to dupe consumers and taxpayers
into thinking that things are better than they really are. They are not and
getting worse every year..as far as disposable income to the average family.

Years ago, a family of 4 could live off the father's wages..now it takes two
(father and mother) to earn enough to pay for all the families needs.
So if the family has preschool kids, daycare costs decrease the net family
income even more. You will note that any tax benefits are "tax credits"
these days and not really a true representation of what it costs to raise
kids today.

[andrewf]

If you pay 6% commission, you're a sucker who's asking to be separated from his money.

The CPI used for benefits calculations does include food and energy, as well as direct taxes like HST.

[carverman]

If you pay 6% commission, you're a sucker who's asking to be separated from his money.

The CPI used for benefits calculations does include food and energy, as well as direct taxes like HST.

Well, I was using the max real estate commission as an example.
Most real estate brokers will charge less than that...and if you are
not in a rush and willing to show the house yourself, there are the
FSBO (for sale by owner) outfits that will provide you with advertising
and some real estate assistance, but they won't show the house or
do any running around for you.

I agree that these days, anybody that pays 6% would be considered a fool
considering there are so many other options available....of course closing
costs are another matter..there you still need a lawyer (at least I think)
to close the deal and ensure you get your money. But even if you
DIY, you still can't escape the hst on the legal fees..and maybe other
services, associated with selling and closing and buying.

Thanks for the update on the CPi, I didn't think that they applied energy
increases to the CPi, but if they do as you mentioned, there is still some
number crunching done with all the things they use as input to arrive at
a weighted number that represents the CPi.

[HaroldCrump]

One of the unfortunate side effects of this unfolding tragedy in Japan is that worldwide there is a loss of confidence in nuclear based energy.
It will further egg on "green" energy zealots who will be screaming for decommissioning all nuclear plants.
Works great for our current administration.
The Darlington plants are supposed to be renewed soon and this raises doubt about the whole thing.
We might see an even bigger "investment" in "green" energy.
And guess where all those extra green dollars will be coming from...yep, our pockets.

[the-royal-mail]

Agreed, Harold.

It might shock people if they knew how important to Ontario nuclear power really is. If they had of been building more generating capacity over the past 30 years to meet their demands, they wouldn't be in the current situation.

The zealots you mention are given way too much rope by politicians.

[crazyjackcsa]

Agreed, Harold.

It might shock people if they knew how important to Ontario nuclear power really is. If they had of been building more generating capacity over the past 30 years to meet their demands, they wouldn't be in the current situation.

The zealots you mention are given way too much rope by politicians.

53% of all power in Ontario is Nuclear actually. Spoke to Mr. Hudak this morning on his stop in Chatham. He says the Conservatives want to see more investment into Hydro electricity and Nuclear.

[brad]

It will further egg on "green" energy zealots who will be screaming for decommissioning all nuclear plants.

I suppose you'd prefer that we switch to coal instead, which kills more people every year (combined totals from extraction and combustion) than all of the lives lost in the history of the nuclear power industry.

Personally I think nuclear power could have a future if the issue of disposal could be resolved. The newest generation of power plants are supposed to be meltdown-proof, but there's still the problem of safe disposal of nuclear waste. Until/unless that's resolved, nuclear power will remain a risky proposition.

While (with a few notable exceptions of course) the dangers of nuclear power have been largely theoretical, the dangers of coal are clear and present -- apart from lives lost in coal extraction there are the many more lives lost and illnesses due to air pollution, including mercury emissions, particulates, etc. -- you don't even have to believe in global warming to see that coal is bad news for human health and the environment.

That leaves natural gas and oil as alternatives; natural gas is a good source for electric power, but is subject to fuel price shocks and supply shortages. Fuel oil is used in a number of power plants in New England and faces the same vulnerability to price shocks.

For "green energy" the cheapest options are hydro and wind. Wind is actually cost-competitive with natural gas at this point; Texas jumped past California a few years back as the jurisdiction with the largest amount of wind-produced electricity in North America. Yes there are NIMBY issues but that's true for any power plant. Biomass is also an option; the U.S. state of Maine produces about 40% of its electricity with biomass (mostly wood waste from their pulp and paper operations).

[HaroldCrump]

I suppose you'd prefer that we switch to coal instead, which kills more people every year (combined totals from extraction and combustion) than all of the lives lost in the history of the nuclear power industry.Brad, you totally misunderstood my post.
What made you think that I'm in favor of decaying old technology like coal?

I'm all for nuclear and of course we need to spend the $$ required to make it safe, disaster proof and sustainable.
The new GenIV reactors that everyone is talking about are expensive.
Really, really expensive.

However, for Ontario, which is nowhere near the disaster threat level like Japan or even California, GenIII will probably suffice.

Green energy has a place, sure, but a small, marginal, experimental place, just enough to placate the environmental zealots and keep them out of public office.

[LondonHomes]

53% of all power in Ontario is Nuclear actually. Spoke to Mr. Hudak this morning on his stop in Chatham. He says the Conservatives want to see more investment into Hydro electricity and Nuclear.

I'm curious to know where he is going to find another site in Ontario to place a new Hydro dam? And did they not just attack the current expansion of hydro electricity generation at Niagara Falls?

[HaroldCrump]

I'd personally not take that assertion by Hudak seriously.
It was probably just a political campaign statement more than a concrete action plan.
IMHO, he is as yet too "green" and clueless for this political landscape.
I am yet to see any serious, credible campaigning from him.
I hope that changes over the next few months because Oct. isn't that far away.

[andrewf]

I'm not convinced that Gen IV reactor designs are inherently more expensive. Expensive to develop and prove, yes. But once built at scale, especially if it can be done as a cookie-cutter/assembly-line scale with most work done in a factory and shipping to the site, the costs are likely to be lower.

For instance, China is building dozens of reactors, and they are likely to be the least expensive reactors built in a long, long time, and probably ever when adjusted for quality/inflation.

Nuclear is such a fantastic energy source that we'd be remiss to abandon it. Indeed, we'd be condemning hundreds of millions to grinding poverty and environmental destruction. A new generation of breeder reactors will be able to deal with the waste problem, not to mention get orders of magnitude more energy out of a given amount of uranium. With breeder reactors, our conceivably recoverable uranium supplies will last many centuries.

[andrewf]

I'd personally not take [...]Hudak seriously.


Agreed. ;)

It's really easy to armchair quarterback. All I've heard from him is that he wants cheap electricity for all, spending increases, tax cuts and a balanced budget. I'm guessing the rest of his platform consists on inventing a perpetual motion machine.

I'm not writing him off yet, but he's clearly hoping to cruise to victory on anti-McGuinty sentiment then continue McGuinty's policies once elected.

[LondonHomes]

Agreed. ;)

It's really easy to armchair quarterback. All I've heard from him is that he wants cheap electricity for all, spending increases, tax cuts and a balanced budget. I'm guessing the rest of his platform consists on inventing a perpetual motion machine.

I'm not writing him off yet, but he's clearly hoping to cruise to victory on anti-McGuinty sentiment then continue McGuinty's policies once elected.

Everything I've seen about McGuinty's energy policies is that they are responsible and address the power supply issue with a long term solution. For Hudack to attack these policies claiming there is anther way to long term cheap power is irresponsible on Hudacks part.

The problem that Ontario faces is that all of the cheap sources of power have already been developed and since our population continues to grow and demand more power, we need to develop more expensive options. The only way to achieve cheaper electricity rates will be subsidize it from other tax revenue or not invest in our power supply which would mean the lights may not turn on when we need them too.

Responsible government isn't about making things cheaper it's about making sure things work.

[HaroldCrump]

Agreed. ;)

It's really easy to armchair quarterback. All I've heard from him is that he wants cheap electricity for all, spending increases, tax cuts and a balanced budget. I'm guessing the rest of his platform consists on inventing a perpetual motion machine.

I'm not writing him off yet, but he's clearly hoping to cruise to victory on anti-McGuinty sentiment then continue McGuinty's policies once elected.LOL, you cleverly trimmed out the key words and quoted me as if I'm dismissing Hudak entirely :)
But yes, if he continues this way I doubt he'll be able to oust McGuinty.
He hasn't been much in the thick of hardcore political things, having held only one marginal cabinet position (Ontario tourism).
IMO, he needs to crank up his campaign if he's to have even a remote chance of ousting McGuinty.
I don't think the anti McGuinty perception is strong enough yet.
After all, the liberals have huge "vote banks" in Ontario and those are the true classical "yellow dog" liberal vote banks.

[ChrisR]

The problem with nuclear power is that it is a rather expensive energy source that cannot be easily scaled to meet energy demands over the short term. You can't turn a nuclear reactor up during the day to supply energy for industry and then turn it down at night when energy usage drops.

This means that nuclear is only an option to supply the base (constant) energy demands in highly populated areas. And the variable energy demands need to be supplied from sources that can be turned up and down based on energy usage (ie. fossil fuels, or hydro).

The other option is to build enough nuclear to satisfy the daytime energy needs, and then sell the excess energy produced at night at a massive loss to our Southern neighbor!

[HaroldCrump]

Ontario has indeed been building up several natural gas power plants.
It is much cleaner burning than coal and much less cost/overhead than nuclear.
Given how cheap natural gas is these days, and the future potential of shale sources, I don't see why the province needs to mess with economically unviable "green" sources, and make us pay for it.
Wind will always be marginal at best.
Only solar may have some potential in the future.
But until then, it needs to be relegated to science labs and the ivory towers of universities.

[brad]

Wind will always be marginal at best.
Only solar may have some potential in the future.


Last year electricity generation by wind in the US increased by 30% and a total of 8.8 million megawatt-hours of electricity were generated by wind power -- this is about 232 times the amount of electricity generated by solar power in the United States.

Source: US Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html.

[humble_pie]

what about the issue of disposal of spent fuel rods that brad raises.

i remember seeing them at pickering. The pool was not on the rooftop, it was at a lower level like ground level. Also unlike fukushima, it was not open to the sky, but inside a large covered chamber.

seen through a large thick plastic window, the pool looked pale turquoise blue, rather like an extra-large regular swimming pool w weird occupants on its floor.

i've lost track of what happens to the rods after they've spent years cooling down in the pool. They are still radioactive, i believe. Once upon a time there was talk about entombing them in concrete in deep caverns in canada's far north. I guess the first nations have put a stop to that idea.

what does the US do with its spent nuclear fuel rods, or are they all still lying in pools ?

[andrewf]

Wind and even solar will likely become cheaper than coal eventually. Cost per unit of energy generated has been falling like a rock. Grid-stabilization and energy storage technologies have been improving significantly as well. It may take twenty or thirty years, but I expect these sources to be significant in the future, even without subsidies.

[ddkay]

Spent fuel from the reactor spends another 10 to 20 years in pools before moving on to reprocessing or permanent dry cask storage that can be kept above or below ground. Europe keeps all of their waste above ground because they haven't been able to decide on a site for underground storage. Originally it was kept in a German salt mine called Asse II but they discovered leakage. OPG was underway start construction on the Kincardine Deep Geological Repository in 2012. I don't know if the Japan crisis will affect their timeline.

[K-133]

Wind and even solar will likely become cheaper than coal eventually. Cost per unit of energy generated has been falling like a rock. Grid-stabilization and energy storage technologies have been improving significantly as well. It may take twenty or thirty years, but I expect these sources to be significant in the future, even without subsidies.

I think you're right.

Unfortunately, I think a lot of the backlash is that people don't want to invest so far down the road.

It is sad how quickly the jolt of reality from the 2003 blackout has faded. Energy is extremely important to our well being, and it is in limited supply. We may be fine today, but without change and investment into alternatives, we will likely find ourselves in trouble tomorrow.

I find it somewhat ironic that such investments are so harshly criticized on a financial forum, as this is simple diversification.

[carverman]

Wind and even solar will likely become cheaper than coal eventually. Cost per unit of energy generated has been falling like a rock. Grid-stabilization and energy storage technologies have been improving significantly as well. It may take twenty or thirty years, but I expect these sources to be significant in the future, even without subsidies.

Hmm? Are you sure about that Andrew? Coal is becoming the cheapest
carbon based fuel source because nobody wants to use it in these days
of green awareness and the whole carbon footprint/global warming thing.

Solar is clean, but in Canada with our long winters, solar is not going to
be significant or cost effective enough to amount to anything other than
a token green power source. The maintenance/replacement cost of the batteries,
(solar is DC converted to AC through power invertors with substantial losses
in the conversion process), will not make it really cost effective in this climate
even if OPG and the powers that be, pay the private generator 80c a kw hour.

Wind generators (wind farms) have some merit in Ontario, especially along
lake shores where one can depend on some kind of breeze, even on the
dog days of summer (no perceptible breeze)....however the infrastructure
costs and environmental impact (bird strikes and other) have a negative
effect on those as well.

Nuclear is the way to go now and in the future. The Canadian CANDU reactor
is a technological leap over the nuclear generation technology used at
3 mile island (US) or Chernobyl (manual decision lead to loss of cooling and
meltdown) or what is happening at the Japan site now.

If Ontario wants to keep the costs of electrical energy down to meet future
demand and there is no more lakes or rivers to dam up for cheaper production
of hydro electric, then nuclear is really the only choice we have.

The other technologies (green as they may be) are only a drop in the bucket
when it comes to meeting future demands.

[andrewf]

CSP in desert areas has a high probability of eventually being cheaper than coal, especially when you factor in health effects of burning coal. I'm guessing the climate change skeptics don't deny the effects of fine particulate emissions, emissions of mercury and other metals, etc. (or is the science still out on that?).

As far as the fit program goes (and I don't support it, myself), I think we should restrict ourselves to the realm of facts and not fantasy.

Here are the rates at present:
* 80.2 cents per kilowatt-hour for rooftop solar.
* 19 cents for offshore wind of any size (first jurisdiction in N.A. to set price)
* 13.5 cents for onshore wind of any size
* 14.7 for biogas under 5 MW.
* 44.3 cents for 10-MW-plus solar, sliding to 71.3 cents as projects scale down to 10 kilowatts.

Since people are living up around the block to get contracts for large solar installations at 44.3 cents/kWh, we can safely assume that the actual cost is a fair bit less than that. Wind probably costs under 10 cents. Neither of these technologies are mature. Coal creates about a kg of CO2/kWh generated. A carbon tax of $40/tonne CO2 (which is equivalent to our current federal excise tax on gasoline--ie, not astronomical) puts wind on par with coal in cost per kWh.

[brad]

Wind probably costs under 10 cents. Neither of these technologies are mature. Coal creates about a kg of CO2/kWh generated. A carbon tax of $40/tonne CO2 (which is equivalent to our current federal excise tax on gasoline--ie, not astronomical) puts wind on par with coal in cost per kWh.

The latest batch of wind generators being installed in Québec are supposed to produce electricity at a little over 10 cents/kWh.

The other thing about coal is that while the fuel is cheap, the power plants are not, in part because of all the required pollution controls. There are new cleaner designs and gasification technologies for coal-fired power plants, but they are not cheap either; you have to factor in both the cost of the power plant and the cost of the fuel to determine total cost.

The other option that interests me in all this is "distributed power," in which very small local power plants generate power for neighbourhoods or even individual households. This should appeal to the Harold Crumps of the world because they'll never be beholden to the electric utility or provincial rate-setting. I saw a demonstration about 12 years ago of a shoebox-size natural gas generator, effectively a miniature super-efficient jet engine, that could generate all of the electricity, heat, and hot water for a 4-bedroom house. And there's a demo house in New York State that generates all its electricity, heat, and hot water with fuel cells that convert chemical energy directly to electricity with no combustion. There are also people who live near rivers who get their power from mini-hydro -- small run-of-river generators that don't require a dam. There are all kinds of options.

[carverman]

The latest batch of wind generators being installed in Québec are supposed to produce electricity at a little over 10 cents/kWh.


Wind costs nothing as far as an energy source, but the infrastructure to required for distribution to the grid is still expensive, but not as expensive as nuclear or NatGas. Wind power and hydro electric are the most cost effective way to go for the future, however, in Ontario, finding good locations for wind farms is still a challenge (similar to new dump sites ..ie: "not in my back yard") but gaining acceptance as time goes on and people start to realize how expensive electric power is going to be over the next few years.



The other thing about coal is that while the fuel is cheap, the power plants are not, in part because of all the required pollution controls. There are new cleaner designs and gasification technologies for coal-fired power plants, but they are not cheap either;
you have to factor in both the cost of the power plant and the cost of the fuel to determine total cost.

Well, whether you generate from natgas or coal or bunker oil, it's still carbon based, although natgas is accepted as clean burning with no perceptible pollution, so the old coal fired plants like the Toronto Lakeshore and Nanticoke are getting converted.



The other option that interests me in all this is "distributed power," in which very small local power plants generate power for neighbourhoods or even individual households. I saw a demonstration about 12 years ago of a shoebox-size natural gas generator, effectively a miniature super-efficient jet engine, that could generate all of the electricity, heat, and hot water for a 4-bedroom house.

I saw one of those at RONA recently. Around $8K +taxes for a 5kw unit. (Also available in smaller capacities).

But it also depends on how much natgas the power plant would consume to generate 1 kwh of electricity at say 15c per kwh
(loaded costs) from the grid. About 40% of the natgas monthly bill now is fixed costs and hst on top of that, so that cu meter
of gas could cost..say 28c + 12c fixed cost = 40c a kwh. Of course, I don't know how much it would consume in an hour..b
but comparing to a 100K btu gas furnace running for an hour..it's going to cost more than 15c to generate that 1kwh on
fuel consumption alone. No matter how you slice it..if you have to depend on a utility supply of fuel/energy through an infrasture
chain..it's going to cost you more to generate that power than just buying it outright.

Of course, if you are heating water and house with it already, then the fixed costs are not that significant when it comes to the actual electric generator consumption...BUT...

The big thing would be cost/ approval/installation for the average household.

The Rona sales dude explained that it takes (about) another $10K or so to have it installed and set up so that it is safe and inspected/approved by the local utility.
It would also have to have a disconnect around the breaker panel so you don't have power factor "clashes" with the utility hydro transformer. In other words some kind of automatic disconnect... and a connect... when the natgas generator is not running.

By the time you factor in the cost of buying/installation and sales taxes,
($16K to 20k), it becomes an expensive option for anybody that has access to the grid right now.

Even though it's a demand type generator, (driving engine requires more fuel combustion to turn the generator, like any gasoline operated generator) there is also the noise factor. Even with mufflers (similiar to high tech gas furnace muffllers), it can still be
heard at night, so it may have to be outside in an approved shelter. That is why the installation costs are so high.




There are also people who live near rivers who get their power from mini-hydro -- small run-of-river generators that don't require a dam. There are all kinds of options.

Micro- power plants. A small generator that can be placed in a fast running stream on your property..provided the stream doesn't freeze during the cold winter or dry up in the summer.
However, most properoies with a small stream do not necessarily have the ideal conditions to operate those 12 months of the year. Winter freezeup and drying up in the hot summers affect most small streams..but for 6 months out of a year....yes, it could supplement the electricity needs of an average house, provided you don't run too many heavy appliances or A/C.

[webber22]

There's an article in the Star about power firms being paid NOT to generate :rolleyes:

http://www.moneyville.ca/article/956001--power-firms-were-paid-millions-not-to-generate-power?bn=1

[carverman]

There's an article in the Star about power firms being paid NOT to generate :rolleyes:

http://www.moneyville.ca/article/956001--power-firms-were-paid-millions-not-to-generate-power?bn=1

This is just the tip of the iceberg as far as the shenanigans going on ,,

that are NOT controlled and allowing the independent operators to do pretty
much as they please. In Ontario we are faced with the double whammy of rising electricity rates and the HST.

Bruce Power (nuclear generation in the Bruce County, near Kincardine) could have enough capacity to accomodate our current needs and keep costs down..but oh no, they have to shut down two generators at the SAME TIME, for "refurbishment".

So, is this just poor planning on their part?.. or just a convenient excuse to get paid and not have to produce as much as they could.
..after all, electricity is a commodity that everyone needs and you can't just shop around for a better rate,
and even if you do and go with an independent marketer..they hit you with additional charges on your bill called GLOBAL ADJUSTMENT (Provincial Benefit).

Because, if there is actually an excess of power /more supply than demand, then they'd have to drop their prices,
and give us a rebate...and thanks to the OEB they don't have to do that!
Green Power @80c /kwh paid to producers..who's subsidizing that? .the McGinty gov't?
It used to be provincial utility, now it's open to anyone to make a buck off the backs of consumers..and the provincial
gov't is jumping on the bandwagon with their HST as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Power

and quotes from the above article by webber22..

"The panel gives the example of a generator that shuts down for two hours, then restarts. By staying online, the generator would have collected $10,000 in revenue. But by shutting off, then back on, a qualifying generator gets about $50,000 in revenue, which all ultimately comes from the pockets of consumers. "

So in essence this constitutes another scam on electricity consumers, just like
the DRC (old Ontario Hydro debt retirement charge on your hydro bill) that
has NO ACCOUNTABILITY, and should have been paid off by now..but they
have discovered that it's just another "cash cow", like the HST on electricity
or home heating... MOo!..time to milk those consumers again!

[canabiz]

Just wondering if you guys recommend wrapping the electric water heater with an insulation blanket to prevent possible heat loss?

Ours is a rental with Direct Energy and it is about 4 years old. It doesn't feel hot when I touch the outside but I got a coupon here from Hydro Ottawa for $4 off the purchase of an insulation blanket. If it does produce some savings then I may as well go for it. Such blanket currently retails for about $40 at Canadian Tire but I have seen it on sale in the past for about half that price.

[m3s]

Might be worth putting it on in the summer if you spend a lot on AC. Here I can use the "wasted" heat most of the year

[carverman]

Just wondering if you guys recommend wrapping the electric water heater with an insulation blanket to prevent possible heat loss?

Are you talking about electric or gas HWT,,,if it's Ottawa Hydro, then I would assume it's electric with two energy hungry 2500 watt elements. (5kwh! if both on on for an hour..thats at least 16c x 5kwh = $.80c loaded hydro rate.
Usually only one element comes on, unless you draw a LOT of hot water at once, ...then watch the TOU meter spin when both elements come on.

If its gas hwt, it may only save about 5 to 10% on gas onsumption..depending on how cold your basement is normally. If you have heat outlets and your furnace is running normally and the basement is almost 70 degrees, it's not going to save a lot. as the gas burner only comes on occasionally, when the water temperature drops, because cold water is coming in or just below
the thermostat threshold. You can turn down the temp thermostat and achieve similar results.



Ours is a rental with Direct Energy and it is about 4 years old. It doesn't feel hot when I touch the outside but I got a coupon here from Hydro Ottawa for $4 off the purchase of an insulation blanket. If it does produce some savings then I may as well go for it. Such blanket currently retails for about $40 at Canadian Tire but I have seen it on sale in the past for about half that price.

No it won't feel hot to the touch, as there is already a special foam insulation between the outer metal liner and the actual tank which is a pressure vessel hence the pressure relief valve.

However, heat loss is very gradual over time...just like in the copper lines which exude heat very quickly. Notice that the first few seconds when you turn on the hot water tap is still cold water? That was hot water that has sat there
for a period of time. Wrap the hot water lines with pipe insulation..it will help somewhat, but it still won't prevent gradual heat loss through convection cooling.

Go for it. $36 with the coupon spread over 12 months times X years makes it definitely worthwhile..it's not going to be a lot of saving, but these days with rising energy costs, any electric HWT insulation + hot water pipe insulation will help.

[canabiz]

carver, sorry that is a gas water heater with Direct Energy. You are right better some saving than nothing.

On the subject of differing opinions, do you guys keep the porch light on overnight? There seems to be 2 different camps for this: 1 will leave it on dusk to dawn (this is what we have) for safety and aesthetic (sp?) reasons while the other doesn't have it on because they don't want to waste any hydro, if they can avoid it.

[hystat]

I wouldn't wrap anything around a gas or oil fired water heater.
Blankets are for electric only, imo.

[hystat]

do you guys keep the porch light on overnight? There seems to be 2 different camps for this: 1 will leave it on dusk to dawn (this is what we have) for safety and aesthetic (sp?) reasons while the other doesn't have it on because they don't want to waste any hydro, if they can avoid it.

13W CFL bulb uses approx 2 cents per night if on for 8 hours.

"not a lot of money, unless you have none" -something my mom told me they said a lot during the great depression...

[carverman]

carver, sorry that is a gas water heater with Direct Energy. You are right better some saving than nothing.

On the subject of differing opinions, do you guys keep the porch light on overnight? There seems to be 2 different camps for this: 1 will leave it on dusk to dawn (this is what we have) for safety and aesthetic (sp?) reasons while the other doesn't have it on because they don't want to waste any hydro, if they can avoid it.

Well, if we are talking about a 13watt or 15 watt CFL, then the penny or two, (15w x 1hr = .015kwh x 8 hrs = .12kwh x 30 days = 3.6 kwh used per month x 16c/kwh (loaded costs) = 57cents per month (approx). Especially if it has a sensor on it that turns it off at dawn and on at dusk..not a big expense as far as hydro consumption goes these days VS estetics and security.

Even it you don't have one of those cheap spotlight security lights, (where you can actually install an outdoor version of the CFL, and decide to leave it on permanently, you are still only talking about $1.72 per month for that 15watt CFL...BUT!.. don't use those 150w floodlights, as they are expensive to operate.

I have a 13w CFL inside my outdoor lamp post ( NOTE:CFLs cannot be exposed to the elements and need either a glass housing or those new versions that have a glass bulb around them..and even then the bases of the CFL cannot be exposed to water.)
I also have a photocell on the lamp post and that takes care of the on-off automatically.
For me , after having my vehicle (almost) broken into one night, damaging the door locks ($300 cost to me) by some teenage hoodlums, (or "pros" trying to steal the vehicle..or maybe the airbag), I think it is money well spent!

Your biggest energy user will be an older fridge with the old style compressors.

Those use around 6.5 amps and as you know fridges run a LOT, especially in the warm summer months when you may not to decide to use the A/C or use it sparingly. Kitchen heat whereever the source is..will cause the fridge to run more often because heat gets into the fridge, the same way that heat escapes slowly from your HWT.

Old style fridges use about 6.5amps which is roughly 800watts. Convert that to a kwh that is 0.8kwh consumption per HOUR of
running the compressor. If you extrapolate the cost at 16c/kwh loaded costs... (or even more with TOU)..that fridge
will cost you 25c or more to run for 1 hr of running.

Now if it runs 25 to 30% of the 24hr day..that is very significant energy consumption!
Lets say..25% during the hot summer months, when the inside kitchen room temp is around 75 to 80F,
AND the fridge thermostat is set to medium or high cool......

4 to 6 hrs is roughly 4 to 6 kwh of electricity consumption..that translates to 64c to 96c (your loaded electricity costs, which included energy + delivery + debt reduction charge + other fixed costs + HST....
AND if you are unlucky to have signed up with an electricity marketer..the Provincial Benefit cost will tack on
ANOTHER..4 to 5 cents for the provincial generators on top of the already loaded electricity costs..so that old fridge
is subsidizing McGinty and the OEB and all the green power farms that are raking in 80c per kwh!
"er..can you hear that "giant sucking sound?"

That old 10 -15 year old fridge is costing you plenty!

Of course you have to balance the cost of replacing it with the energy saved (by the newer style more efficient/low consumption compressors used in the Energy Smart appliances.(Typically around 4.5 amps vs 6.5 amps or 30 to 33% less consumption
when running)..and you are not going to save money right away.. BUT.....as electricity costs go up over the years due to
cost of production, political bungaling and green power generators at the public trough..somebody has to subsidize these
entrepreneurs of green energy..so guess what?...it's you and you and me....

So if that new energy effiicent fridge runs 1--15 years..the payback will be ....what you paid for the
fridge initially (including the HST) AND then quite a bit more..and the best part...McGinty won't be able to squeeze your
head some more for more and more HST on the higher energy consumption of the old fridge!

Leave your CFL light on...try to save on where it will keep money in your pocket...the high electricity usage appliances.

[carverman]

I wouldn't wrap anything around a gas or oil fired water heater.
Blankets are for electric only, imo.

Well there are a two schools of thought on this..gas fired HWT needs air for combustion AND the top of the tank has a vent that takes in room air for the exhaust flue convection "purging"..I forget what the technical term for it is.

But if you have the conventional gas HWT (without the venter fan on the exhaust
port) , you need natural air convection to keep those unburned and smelly exhaust gases from creeping into your basement.
so yes, you cannot wrap even a non combustible blanket around those areas of the tank.
Having said this....

you still should be able to wrap a blanket around the outside of a gas hwt, BUT the top must be free of any insulation material for the vent air flow and the bottom area around the gas valve has to be free of any coverings, and so does the pressure relief valve that can open if the thermostat ever gets stuck..
causing the pressure relief valve to open... to prevent the tank from exploding.

So considering that you can only safely cover about 50% or so of the tank's heat radiating surface..(and most unfortunately,
the highest heat radiating surface will be at the top, where the hotwater and the hot water pipe sits...you are not going to save a lot in heat...but 50% is still better than nothing. Just be cautious when doing this.

[brad]

Wind and even solar will likely become cheaper than coal eventually. Cost per unit of energy generated has been falling like a rock. Grid-stabilization and energy storage technologies have been improving significantly as well. It may take twenty or thirty years, but I expect these sources to be significant in the future, even without subsidies.

Wind power is really taking off in the United States -- total capacity there now is 41,400 MW, enough to power 10 million homes, according to US Department of Energy. The amount of new wind capacity under construction in the first quarter of 2011 is twice as high as it was in the first quarter of 2010, which in turn was twice as high as in the first quarter of 2009.

Solar power generation in the US grew 343% between the first quarter of 2010 and the first quarter of 2011.

[donaldhumiston]

Anything that would work and is possible to acquire is always the best bet. The energy saving has been with us for ages and it is always the same story.

[OhGreatGuru]

Are you talking about electric or gas HWT,,,if it's Ottawa Hydro, then I would assume it's electric with two energy hungry 2500 watt elements. (5kwh! if both on on for an hour..thats at least 16c x 5kwh = $.80c loaded hydro rate.
Usually only one element comes on, unless you draw a LOT of hot water at once, ...then watch the TOU meter spin when both elements come on.



Actually, dual-element electric hot water heaters are nearly all designed so that only one element can come on at a time. The wiring rules for them are designed on that assumption. The total kwh used would depend on how much water you had to heat, plus heat losses from radiation into the house, regardless of the wattage of the heating elements. Higher wattage elements just allow you to heat the water faster (shorter recovery time )

[OhGreatGuru]

Wind and even solar will likely become cheaper than coal eventually. Cost per unit of energy generated has been falling like a rock. Grid-stabilization and energy storage technologies have been improving significantly as well. It may take twenty or thirty years, but I expect these sources to be significant in the future, even without subsidies.

They said the same thing about nuclear power when the plants were first being built. And look how well that turned out.

[brad]

They said the same thing about nuclear power when the plants were first being built. And look how well that turned out.

The difference is that wind power is already economical even without subsidies; solar still has a long way to go before it's cost-competitive but new technologies are being developed all the time that are bringing the cost down. Wind turbines and solar electric technologies aren't new untested technologies; they've been in use for a few decades now so the costs of construction and interconnection to the grid are known. Plus you have to remember that the "fuel" is free. These are both intermittent sources of power (solar only works during the day, wind only works when it's windy), but energy generated by these technologies can be stored for later use -- as anyone who uses these technologies currently knows.

[OhGreatGuru]

I'm curious to know where he is going to find another site in Ontario to place a new Hydro dam? And did they not just attack the current expansion of hydro electricity generation at Niagara Falls?

Ontario Hydro/OPG abandoned new hydro generation because they weren't interested in anything smaller than a mega-project. Many people believe there is still a lot of potential left in Ontario for small-scale hydro generation.

[andrewf]

They said the same thing about nuclear power when the plants were first being built. And look how well that turned out.

Nuclear power is great. It hasn't and won't live up to the 'too cheap to meter' nonsense.

The problem with nuclear is excessive government involvement. Costs spiral when every plant is lovingly hand-crafted to be a unique little butterfly. They should be cookie-cutter, assembly-line affairs (this is how China is doing it). Nuclear is also incredibly safe. An upcoming technologies like pebble-bed reactors or molten-salt reactors are even safer. Fossil fuel use and extraction kills tens of thousands per year.

[carverman]

Actually, dual-element electric hot water heaters are nearly all designed so that only one element can come on at a time. . Higher wattage elements just allow you to heat the water faster (shorter recovery time )

Yes, I know that. But if you suck out all the water on a 40gal US tank,
BOTH the top and bottom elements are going to come on because there
is only cold water in the tank at that point and each thermostat senses
that. At least it's 220V, but P= I xE..so the wattage consumed to reheat
the water is still the same..watch that Smart meter "spin"!

[carverman]

Nuclear power is great. It hasn't and won't live up to the 'too cheap to meter' nonsense.

Funny you should say that Andrew..many years ago when I was but a wee
lad..I read in Popular Science, that electricity generated from nuclear energy in the future, would be so cheap, that it would be almost pointless to meter it...
..a futuristic promise no doubt...like the flying car. :D



The problem with nuclear is excessive government involvement. Costs spiral when every plant is lovingly hand-crafted to be a unique little butterfly. They should be cookie-cutter, assembly-line affairs (this is how China is doing it).


Well if you have bought any chinese made goods recently, you may want
to change that thought...however China is smart..rather than risk future
disasters with "cookie cutter" reactor technology like Chernobyl for example..
China IS installing Canadian designed nuclear power plants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor

One of the best things we as a nation ever did was design the CANDU reactor with its safeguards.
It IS expensive technology, but frankly I'm glad, because the last thing you want is an environmental disaster like at the Fukisima? Japan/Chernobyl Russia and Three mile Island (US) generating reactor meltdowns. That reaction goes on
an on and the only thing they can do is encase it in a cement sarcophagus.

[andrewf]

I don't think you understand what I meant by cookie cutter. It's not a statement about quality of design. It's a matter of banging out 100 standard reactors. They can be very well-designed, have interchangeable parts, can have many components pre-fabricated and delivered to site from a production line, common training and expertise, and have the development cost amortized over many copies. Traditionally, each reactor was adapted to each individual site. Some times they were mirror images, had different levels of redundancy, different subsystems, etc. This increases the chances of mistakes.

Fukushima, if anything, demonstrates how safe nuclear power is. The reactor sustained an earthquake much stronger than it was rated for, and could have shut down gracefully if power had been mantained to the reactors' coolant systems. The design failure was in power backup that was susceptible to tsunami damage. And even despite this failure, there are unlikely to be lasting ill-effects.

Chernobyl, on the other hand, didn't have a containment system. It was an appallingly poorly designed reactor.

[carverman]

I don't think you understand what I meant by cookie cutter. It's not a statement about quality of design. It's a matter of banging out 100 standard reactors. They can be very well-designed, have interchangeable parts, can have many components pre-fabricated and delivered to site from a production line, common training and expertise, and have the development cost amortized over many copies.

Well in theory, maybe..but nuclear reactors can't really roll of the production
line like fridges or cars. They are complex beasts and a lot of it has to
be custom fitted on site and the testing and signoff is enormous. Failure
to torque one bolt to EXACT specs could jeopardize the operation once
it starts up. Fortunately with the CANDU system and good design principles,
there are several built in backup systems to safeguard the reactor core and prevent a meltdown. It should never happen with a properly installed and
commissioned reactor.

Nuclear reactors are built on a cost plus basis and according to the country's
requirements..and in Canada's CANDU case..in accordance with Atomic Energy of Canada..so we will never see the "cookie cutter" theory applied to the CANDU,
and the next gen of CANDUs, which are being redesigned and
tested and tested. These should realize,at least in theory..somewhat of a cost
reduction..but that remains to be seen.



Traditionally, each reactor was adapted to each individual site. Some times they were mirror images, had different levels of redundancy, different subsystems, etc. This increases the chances of mistakes.

They still are. Site selection and preparation is a huge cost on top of the
cost of the reactor and management of it.

[andrewf]

carver, that's the way it has typically been done in the West due to our legacy regulations. China is taking a different approach.

Nuclear plants have to be built to high, exacting specifications but that doesn't preclude assembly line construction, with major components being produced in controlled production lines and being shipped to site for final assembly or installation. The old norm would be to ship all the parts to the site, each one engineered for that reactor site to different specs and assembled on site, usually in quite isolated areas, and at great cost in time and money. Nuclear reactors may not be refrigerators, but they are akin to say, the Airbus A380. Subsystems and components are built off-site and assembled in one location. It doesn't mean it is not built to a high standard. Aerospace is not very forgiving from an engineering perspective.

[carverman]

China is taking a different approach.

Yes, they are buying CANDU reactors, even though they already
have their own nuclear program for possible weapons, they realize
that because of their trade advantage, it is probably "cheaper" for
them to just buy our CANDU technology.



Nuclear plants have to be built to high, exacting specifications but that doesn't preclude assembly line construction, with major components being produced in controlled production lines and being shipped to site for final
assembly or installation.

Well ok, I'm not saying that it isn't possible for many sub assembles to be
cast or machined in factories approved for nuclear component manufacture,
but the final assembly, testing, activating with heavy water/low grade
fuel pellets HAS to be done on site...so it's not like bolting it together
and throwing a switch on to start the fission process. It takes months/years
to commission a nuclear generator.



Nuclear reactors may not be refrigerators, but they are akin to say, the Airbus A380. Subsystems and components are built off-site and assembled in one location. It doesn't mean it is not built to a high standard. Aerospace is not very forgiving from an engineering perspective.

I'm not disputing that someday with technological advances, nuclear
electricity generators can't be built as you say..but there is a huge
difference between a consortium that builds the A380 and one country
that could build it's own nuclear reactors with "economical" methods
of construction (ie: cheaper but not necessarily better)
assembly line technique.
These are not consumer grade electronics,where if a fault develops,
you just toss out the old one and buy another.

1. The A380 subassemblies are built in specific European airbus contractors
and these have good technology, equipment, a SKILLED labour force,
and responsible for their subassemblies to the prime contractor, AIRBUS.

2. Aircraft components under NUMEROUS QUALIFICATION testing, as well as
final testing, according to meticulous specifications provided.

3. These components/subassemblies are combined in a specific place
in France, where a SKILLED workforce exists to assemble, test and
certify that the aircraft is airworthy.

4. A commercial aircraft developing a fault usually has some backup
systems that will still allow some kind of recovery..but in the event
that the aircraft cannot be recovered from a catastrophic fault,
the impact (in a literal sense here) only affects, the victims, the
families of the victims, the airline, the insurance companies and
the area of the crash scene.

Thousands of people of the general public are generally not affected,
or displaced as would be the case of a nuclear reactor malfunction or
worse case scenario..core meltdown.



3.

[andrewf]

There's generally no good reason for individual reactors to be unique. That is mostly an artifact of the planning and approval process where reactors are not part of a large overarching program of nuclear power development.

It's not true that China is building primarily CANDUs. They have bought a few in the past. It looks like Areva and Westinghouse are the leading suppliers of reactors at the moment. A very interesting wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China

[carverman]

It's not true that China is building primarily CANDUs. They have bought a few in the past. It looks like Areva and Westinghouse are the leading suppliers of reactors at the moment.

Well that remains to be seen Andrew. After the Fukisima power plant incident,
it looks like China is reconsidering nuclear..or at least put any more nuclear
power plant development on hold.

here's a link to the various reactor theoritical designs..some are just concepts
and will take many years before they become a reality to generate power...
If ever...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor#Very-high-temperature_reactor_.28VHTR.29

Some of the advantages of the CANDU
1 Proven track and safety
2. Does not require the use of enriched uranium
3. Several backup safety systems
4. Designed and approved through Atomic Energy of Canada
5. Operational personnel training is one of the best in the world

There are probably other advantages but cost of installing a CANDU is
not one of them.

[andrewf]

I'm not knocking CANDU. I also am not the one who needs to be sold on what reactor technology the Chinese will use.

As far as them putting pause on their nuclear program: this is just politics. Fukushima changes nothing. The main lesson learned is to ensure that redundant safety systems are truly redundant, and not likely to be damaged/rendered inoperable by the same event that disables the primary system. The Fukushima plant is old, and much better designs are available today. China needs vast amounts of energy. There's no way nuclear can't play a large role in providing it.

[carverman]

I'm not knocking CANDU. I also am not the one who needs to be sold on what reactor technology the Chinese will use.


Andrew; both you and I are NOT nuclear experts, so we shouldn't even
attempt to second guess what the Chinese will decide to use when
they do.



As far as them putting pause on their nuclear program: this is just politics. Fukushima changes nothing. The main lesson learned is to ensure that redundant safety systems are truly redundant, and not likely to be damaged/rendered inoperable by the same event that disables the primary system. The Fukushima plant is old, and much better designs are available today. China needs vast amounts of energy. There's no way nuclear can't play a large role in providing it.

And I'm sure the Chinese gov't knows that. They have a lot of coal burning
generators and coal is still the cheapest alternative to them..but I believe
somehow that even they know that they can't continue burning coal, just
like oil, because of pollution to their cities/environment, and the huge
carbon footprint their industrialized economy produces.

Perhaps, just like the west, they will start to discover "green power"..but
when they do..watch the price rise of Chinese produced goods, shipped to
the west.

You have some good arguments/points, though.