# Ontario Power Generation reliance on nuclear generation



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Here is a site that shows actual real-time power generation by source:

https://live.gridwatch.ca/home-page.html


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Cool.... I worked on Pick A (post-startup) and B (throughout), and Darlington (prelim design) throughout the '70s. Nice to see the continued renewal and operation of most of these units (Pick A-2 and A-3 excepted).


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

I am no expert, but one thing those numbers seem to show, is that it is not easy to match generation with demand - especially in the short term. 

- Hydro can be reduced by by-passing turbines, but it is the one you would least like to reduce.
- Nuclear generation cannot, I believe be increased/reduced quickly to match demand.
- Wind and solar can be cut back or turned off, but then producers would, I believe, have to be paid anyway.
- Gas power production can usually be raised/lowered quickly, but the low amount being used may just be what is needed to keep some generation plants idling and ready.

Critics often say that at times we pay for others to take our power. This likely does happen, but I doubt it is a significant cost. Better than having to produce more power from fossil fuel powered plants that are more easily balanced to meet demand. 

Quite impressive how low CO2 emissions are.


----------



## off.by.10 (Mar 16, 2014)

agent99 said:


> - Hydro can be reduced by by-passing turbines, but it is the one you would least like to reduce.
> - Nuclear generation cannot, I believe be increased/reduced quickly to match demand.


Depends on the reservoir size for hydro. Some places barely have any so they are kept producing as much as possible. The more water can be stored, the more output can be changed without wasting water. Within reason of course, depending on what is downstream.

As for nuclear, I think it's not so much "can't" as "not economical to do so" because most of the costs are fixed. So it makes economic sense to produce at full capacity.

Cool website though  I just wish they showed days other than today.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Big thermal plants cannot really be ramped up or down quickly without releasing huge amounts of unneeded heat in the steam to the cooling towers or lake/river water. The residual heat has to be released. This is even harder in nuclear plants because of residual fission reactions in the reactor after the neutron absorbing rods interfere with the primary fission process. Hence nuclear plants in particular are base load plants.

The more we rely on nuclear power and unpredictable wind and solar power, the more gas turbine generation will be needed to absorb swing load. The standby generation ratio will need to continue to increase with its associated cost. Add in huge swing loads from EV charging demand, and even more standby generation and grid capacity will have to be added. Unintended consequences that have yet to be dealt with.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Not sure. I recall during the 2005 (?) blackout that it took days to bring the nuclear plants back up to normal operating capacity after the emergency shutdown.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

AltaRed said:


> Big thermal plants cannot really be ramped up or down quickly without releasing huge amounts of unneeded heat in the steam to the cooling towers or lake/river water. The residual heat has to be released. This is even harder in nuclear plants because of residual fission reactions in the reactor after the neutron absorbing rods interfere with the primary fission process. Hence nuclear plants in particular are base load plants.
> 
> The more we rely on nuclear power and unpredictable wind and solar power, the more gas turbine generation will be needed to absorb swing load. The standby generation ratio will need to continue to increase with its associated cost. Add in huge swing loads from EV charging demand, and even more standby generation and grid capacity will have to be added. Unintended consequences that have yet to be dealt with.


I suspect most EV charging will be off peak at night. Some charging station operators are also installing stationary batteries at charging stations to levelize their demand and avoid expensive grid connection upgrades.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

andrewf said:


> I suspect most EV charging will be off peak at night. Some charging station operators are also installing stationary batteries at charging stations to levelize their demand and avoid expensive grid connection upgrades.


Yes I think in the case of Ontario, most of the production is from Niagara and nuclear so the ideal would be lots of off-peak demand through EV charging and clothes drying which is essentially free for OPG. Use the EV batteries for storage is obviously better than separate battery storage. EVs should be subsidized for Ontario, Quebec and BC for that reason. Solar and wind seems to make little sense for those provinces.

Maybe selective incentives for commercial vehicles and buses to switch to battery power. Maybe there should be incentives for the other provinces to implement nuclear stations so that all provinces benefit from such incentives?


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

andrewf said:


> Not sure. I recall during the 2005 (?) blackout that it took days to bring the nuclear plants back up to normal operating capacity after the emergency shutdown.


That is exactly my point. Other than an emergency shutdown, rate of controlled change in power output is limited. It takes a long time to get a controlled fission process back up to full power given the complexity of the nuclear reactions, heat sink in the reactor heat transport loop, etc. Nuclear plants will always be base load.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

AltaRed said:


> That is exactly my point. Other than an emergency shutdown, rate of controlled change in power output is limited. It takes a long time to get a controlled fission process back up to full power given the complexity of the nuclear reactions, heat sink in the reactor heat transport loop, etc. Nuclear plants will always be base load.


Well, conventional nuclear reactors certainly. There is a lot of work underway to develop small modular reactors, some using molten salt, that are mass producable and much smaller than typical reactors. These will be more dispatchable.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

andrewf said:


> Well, conventional nuclear reactors certainly. There is a lot of work underway to develop small modular reactors, some using molten salt, that are mass producable and much smaller than typical reactors. These will be more dispatchable.


Sure but overall efficiency will be sacrificed as well as run time. All these things come at a cost to the consumer of electricity. At the moment, nothing can beat cheap natural gas cogeneration plants which are winners around industrial complexes such as oil sands, refineries, petro-chemicals, etc. Just can't beat NG currently about $7.35/GJ (and that is the retail rate I paid last month), not a contractual industrial rate. Someday it will make sense pehaps, but there is a considerable gap to close.

Edit: Revised NG rate to include delivery and storage charges to commodity charge.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

AltaRed said:


> Sure but overall efficiency will be sacrificed as well as run time. All these things come at a cost to the consumer of electricity. At the moment, nothing can beat cheap natural gas cogeneration plants which are winners around industrial complexes such as oil sands, refineries, petro-chemicals, etc. Just can't beat NG currently about $7.35/GJ (and that is the retail rate I paid last month), not a contractual industrial rate.


And isn't Natural Gas a winner in the backup ability to shut down and ramp up quickly to accommodate the problems with solar and wind.... i.e.. they provide no power when there's no sun and no power when there's no wind.

ltr


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

like_to_retire said:


> And isn't Natural Gas a winner in the backup ability to shut down and ramp up quickly to accommodate the problems with solar and wind.... i.e.. they provide no power when there's no sun and no power when there's no wind.
> 
> ltr


Indeed it is, and I doubt NG fired turbine cogeneration (combined cycle) will go away any time soon. In fact, it will be needed more than ever as standby peak loading for an increasingly volatile grid.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

off.by.10 said:


> Depends on the reservoir size for hydro.


The main "reservoir" for Ontario Hydro power is Lake Erie. It is fairly large


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

AltaRed said:


> Indeed it is, and I doubt NG fired turbine cogeneration (combined cycle) will go away any time soon. In fact, it will be needed more than ever as standby peak loading for an increasingly volatile grid.


That was my point, (although probably not that clearly stated  ) back in post #3. 

Gas fired plants help when there is a need need to ramp up generation quickly because of demand or lack of wind/solar. (One is being built a few miles from us near the Lennox station). But when we have too much power they can only be cut back so far. Then we have to sell, or in some cases give energy away, on the grid. 

There are projects that would use battery banks to store excess energy for short term production peaks. Even pole mounted community power packs in Toronto! Energy storage will no doubt be more common place soon.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

AltaRed said:


> Indeed it is, and I doubt NG fired turbine cogeneration (combined cycle) will go away any time soon. In fact, it will be needed more than ever as standby peak loading for an increasingly volatile grid.


I have to point out there are alternatives to deal with peak loads and flattening the electrical consumption profile. 
Transcanada Energy has a pumped storage project with a 1 GWh capacity. Still in the initial consultation phase, but it would be something that can reduce dependence on peaker natural gas plants.
https://www.tcenergy.com/pumpedstorage


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

But questionable whether there is any economics to such a large project. Peak loading could be a lot more dynamic than a storage project can react too making smaller projects more responsive. Time will tell.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

AltaRed said:


> But questionable whether there is any economics to such a large project. Peak loading could be a lot more dynamic than a storage project can react too making smaller projects more responsive. Time will tell.


Pump storage isn't new technology and has been used in a number of countries like Australia. And its responsiveness is probably just as quick as firing a gas plant. All you need to do is open the floodgates.

Given that it is a private company doing the project, they would have determined the economic feasibility.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

bgc_fan said:


> Pump storage isn't new technology and has been used in a number of countries like Australia.


It's not new in Canada either. There is a facility at Niagara Falls (175 MW) that came on line in 1957. Described here: https://www.opg.com/innovating-for-tomorrow/energy-storage/

Because of the large difficult to turn down base capacity provided by nuclear, hydro and take or pay wind/solar, it makes sense to use excess capacity for storage when energy price on grid is low. Pumped storage is no doubt capital intensive, but I imagine battery storage with similar capacity is too.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

AltaRed said:


> But questionable whether there is any economics to such a large project. Peak loading could be a lot more dynamic than a storage project can react too making smaller projects more responsive. Time will tell.


GE has taken a massive write down on its gas turbine business. I hear of many peaker plants, even relatively new ones, being decommissioned.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

I am quite familiar with pumped storage and the long standing Niagara project having been with Ontario Hydro for many years. They have their place but are also somewhat inefficient. Once built though and amortized, they keep on going like the Energizer bunny.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

andrewf said:


> AltaRed said:
> 
> 
> > But questionable whether there is any economics to such a large project. Peak loading could be a lot more dynamic than a storage project can react too making smaller projects more responsive. Time will tell.
> ...


That will most likely change yet again when load demands become even more dynamic as a result of more renewable power and EV demands. Norway has experienced more grid instability as they have progressed along the EV path.

Added: There are nothing but unknowns going forward. There will need to be a range of alternative peaking supplies. I don't ever see battery storage being more than a niche option for selective locations.


----------

