Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

wtmusic

(39,166 posts)
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 11:21 AM Apr 2013

Ontario's nuclear renaissance helps lower GHG emissions 18% in 7 years

[div style="float: left; padding-right: 12px;"]"Ontario is making history: as part of the largest climate change initiative in North America, the province announced the early closure of its two largest Southern Ontario coal plants by the end of 2013, a year ahead of schedule. With the closure of the Nanticoke and Lambton plants, 17 of the provinces 19 coal units will be closed, keeping Ontario on track to completely phase out coal as a source of electricity production by the end of 2014. Already, over 80 per cent of Ontario’s power is generated from a diverse mix of sources, including nuclear energy as well as such cleaner sources as hydro and renewables. The mix also includes significant natural gas.

The announcement represents a longstanding commitment to reducing the province’s dependency on coal; Ontario has reduced its use by nearly 90 per cent since 2003. With the closure of Nanticoke and Lambton, greenhouse gas emissions promise to decrease from a high of 41.4 megatonnes in 2000 down to five megatonnes after 2020. Sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides emissions are already down 93 per cent and 85 per cent, respectively, since 2003, and 2011 mercury emissions were the lowest on record in over 45 years. Plus, the initiative is estimated to save the province $4.4 billion annually considering health and environmental costs.

With the Liberals finally following through on their 2003 election promise to close the coal plants, the government’s next steps are as yet unclear. Ontario has not yet defined how it will regulate greenhouse gas emissions in the future. However a discussion paper released earlier this month indicates that it intends to pursue equivalency agreements with federal regulation aimed at limiting greenhouse gas emissions. This means that Ontario will ensure that its policy development will be tied to federal developments, and that we may see regulations being released on a sector-by-sector basis rather than comprehensively across major emitters, as would be the case if Ontario were to implement a cap and trade system similar to the regimes recently implemented in California and Quebec. The federal government has already released regulations for coal-fired electricity generation, which will not affect Ontario due to the coal phase-out. Future regulation of others sectors, like natural gas, could have a significant impact on the province and need to be addressed soon to limit duplicity of regulation – particularly as regulations are expected as soon as 2016."

http://zizzoallan.com/2013/01/29/ontario-accelerates-coal-phase-out-and-releases-ghg-emissions-reduction-discussion-paper/

"Air quality in Canada's Ontario province has improved dramatically in recent years, simultaneously with the ramping up of nuclear power and the phase-out of coal.

Ontario is home to a large portion of Canadian industry, the cities of Ottawa and Toronto and some 40% of the country's population of 33.4 million. Data from the Ontario Ministry of the Environment shows a dramatic reduction in the air pollution that in 2005 was affecting these people for at least ten days during the year. The worst-affected places in 2005 had been 14 of 37 Ontario locations with more than 40 smog-warning days. Every location had at least ten smog days.

In 2011, by contrast, the worst-affected place had only eight smog-warning days, while 18 of the 37 locations had no smog warnings at all. Overall, days on which the people were warned about unhealthy levels of smog at one location or another have dropped from 53 in 2005 to just nine in 2011."

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/EE_Ontarios_energy_transition_2904131.html

5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Ontario's nuclear renaissance helps lower GHG emissions 18% in 7 years (Original Post) wtmusic Apr 2013 OP
Ontario's lower greenhouse gas emissions stem from many major efforts including cogeneration LiberalEsto Apr 2013 #1
If I ran a business in Ontario wtmusic May 2013 #3
I'm afraid I can't view nuclear energy as "clean" because of the radioactive waste nt LiberalEsto May 2013 #4
Cleaner? wtmusic May 2013 #5
The "nuclear renaissance" was about building new reactors, not patching up old rust-buckets. bananas Apr 2013 #2
 

LiberalEsto

(22,845 posts)
1. Ontario's lower greenhouse gas emissions stem from many major efforts including cogeneration
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 12:41 PM
Apr 2013

A few years ago I authored a lengthy article on Ontario's efforts to reduce emissions through significant reductions in electric demand and through major cogeneration projects.

These efforts to reduce energy use were launched because the Conservation Bureau, a division of the Ontario Power Authority, issued a challenge to the people of Ontario to reduce their energy consumption by 10%.

Link to full article: http://www.cospp.com/articles/print/volume-9/issue-3/features/ontario-employs-cogeneration-in-bid-to-lower-grid-demand.html

From the article:

"The (Ontario Pronvincial) government set a target of reducing peak energy use in the province by 6300 MW by 2025. This amount is almost equal to the capacity of Ontario’s current coal-fired generation plants, which are scheduled to be shut down by the end of 2014. Interim energy-saving goals were set by the government to reduce consumption by 1350 MW by 2007 and by an additional 1350 MW by 2010. On-site power generation was one of an assortment of measures chosen by the provincial government to help achieve those goals."

The Ontario Realty Corporation, which manages thousands of government-owned buildings in the province, was assigned the job of helping the provincial government and its various ministries reduce energy consumption in government buildings by 10% from the base year of 2002–2003.

"In addition to cogeneration, ORC has implemented a variety of measures to lower energy demand in Ontario’s government buildings. The bulk of the savings to date is due to aggressive implementation of building retrofits and equipment upgrades, including lighting retrofits, building automation, chiller/HVAC system replacements or improvements, and performance monitoring.

"ORC conducted 109 energy audits in 2006–07, the most recent full fiscal year. It has also completed an extensive sub-metering programme to measure energy consumption and identify potential savings.

"ORC was also involved with Enwave, a project that makes use of icy-cold water from the bottom of Lake Ontario to supply cooling for buildings in downtown Toronto. It provides air conditioning for 100 office buildings totaling 32 million ft2 (3 million m2) of building space and is one of the largest district energy systems in North America."

wtmusic

(39,166 posts)
3. If I ran a business in Ontario
Wed May 1, 2013, 11:29 AM
May 2013

I'd jump on cogeneration too after the 2003 blackout, but the problem was more one of integration with the national grid than supply.

Cogeneration works great as a safety net, but the provincial grid with almost 60% nuclear is now significantly cleaner than any of the companies which are contributing natural gas electricity. It's helping to get off coal now, but will slow the transition from natural gas to cleaner sources.

wtmusic

(39,166 posts)
5. Cleaner?
Thu May 2, 2013, 02:46 PM
May 2013

Nuclear waste is somewhere on the order of a million times more compact than the arsenic- and mercury-laced toxic fly ash emitted out by coal plants.

That's why coal plants in the U.S. alone are responsible for ~15,000 deaths every year, and nuclear plants are responsible for zero.

bananas

(27,509 posts)
2. The "nuclear renaissance" was about building new reactors, not patching up old rust-buckets.
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 11:10 PM
Apr 2013

The IAEA PRIS database shows that Canada hasn't brought a new reactor online since 1993 - 20 years ago:
DARLINGTON-4 First Grid Connection: 1993-04-17
http://www.iaea.org/pris/CountryStatistics/CountryDetails.aspx?current=CA

New reactors were cancelled because they were outrageously expensive:
"Nuclear Bombshell: $26 Billion cost — $10,800 per kilowatt! — killed Ontario nuclear bid"
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2009/07/15/204378/nuclear-power-plant-cost-bombshell-ontario/?mobile=nc

Efficiency, natural gas, renewables, and refurbished old reactors are how they are eliminating coal,
it has nothing to do with a "nuclear renaissance":
"Outlook for Electricity Demand and Supply in Ontario"
Amir Shalaby, VP Power System Planning
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.powerauthority.on.ca%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fnews%2FAmir-ShalabyAppro2012.pptx




Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Ontario's nuclear renaiss...