on building nuclear to create hydrogen

The head of the IESO, the operator of Ontario’s electricity system, recently delivered a speech at an event organized by both the Ontario Energy Association and the Association of power Producers of Ontario (APPrO). I read the notes as it’s always interesting when the contractor speaks to the potentially contracted. Being a nuclear advocate this jumped out at me:

“We continue to work with Bruce Power and Ontario Power Generation to assess the feasibility for 17,800 MW of new nuclear in the province – consistent with our Pathways to Decarbonization report”

As a nuclear advocate, and a consumer advocate, and as a commentator whose supply mix suggestions following a procurement orgy from 2009-2011 closely match where we ended up today, I felt obliged to follow up. It’s not feasible, but it is fashionably ridiculous.

The Pathways to Decarbonization is a report delivered by the IESO to the Ministry of Energy, at the request of the Minister, intended to, “evaluate a moratorium on new natural gas generation in Ontario and to develop a pathway to zero emissions in the electricity sector.” I didn’t pay much attention because I think those are facile topics, but seeing it cited as a reason for 2-3 times more nuclear, it was now worth ctrl f’ing the document.

There’s some lovely bar charts, with related data tables, displaying capacity that exists and is planned to still be operating in 2050, along with new capacity needed and the totals for both. The figure for capacity includes the 17,800 MW “New Capacity Online by 2050.” What slowed my enthusiasm was the energy number expected from this 17,800 MW: 63 TWh.

That’s very low. Upon checking, the only years of nuclear output below that level, since 1985, came when we’d deliberately idled the 5,000 MW of capacity a Pickering A and Bruce A (1998-2003), which would have put active capacity around 8,200 MW , so getting that same level of output out of 17,800 MW seemed a mistake. Unfortunately, it’s a little worse than that.

This presentation of the data lacks context for those not aware of today’s actual supply, but compared to now this is roughly doubling solar, imports and nuclear (not adjusted for the decreased real capacity due to refurbishment), and nearly tripling wind. Gas is disposed of and replaced, in its capacity role, largely with hydrogen.

Where, oh where, will we get the hydrogen? 

Will the new version of Ontario Energy Minister prove to be Smitherman 2.0?

"Minister Lecce needs to step back and gain knowledge on the existing costs to us Ontarians of our electricity needs instead of charging ahead..." -Parker Gallant

Parker and I have been communicating on Ontario’s electricity sector for over 13 years. We both started due to the wreckage of a brash new minister casting aside the policy of a professional planners to boldly undertake a new direction intended to make Ontario a leader in wind and solar energy. Back in 2009 an Integrated Power System Plan (IPSP) was cast aside and a directive from a freshman Energy Minister, and trusted Deputy Premier, signed an enormous 2,500 MW deal with a Korean consortium that was supposed to kick off the rush to 10,700 MW of non-hydro renewables. There is not, anything certain I wish to communicate today, but I have collected and formatted data throughout, so I thought I’d collect a number of the graphics and data sources I’ve been using on social media to communicate the concerns I have about returning to a GEA-era procurement debacle.

“With energy demand growing rapidly, our government is stepping up by advancing our largest energy procurement in our history.” -Stephen Lecce, Minister of Energy and Electrification  [emphasis added]

I don’t generally focus on semantics, but “energy” is used very poorly in Lecce’s communication. Let’s look for “growing rapidly” in annual electricity supply in Ontario over the past 88 years.

Ford Channels McGuinty in directives to new Energy Minister

Ontario recently swapped Energy and Education Ministers. Early comments from the new Minister of Energy (and Electrification), Stephen Lecce, indicate a type of student we see far too often in the fields of environment and energy; one willing to take direction without putting much thought, or study, into them. Of particular concern are comments on exporting power. In a recent interview[1] Lecce describes ‘three key priorities” in his “marching orders” from the Premier. Presumably the current Premier, Doug Ford, but maybe not.

First, we are absolutely committed to ensuring an affordable electricity system for families, seniors and small businesses.
Second is the expansion of clean-energy generation for the people of Ontario. We already have one of the cleanest grids on the continent. The vision is to continue to generate more as our population increases, our industry expands and our manufacturing electrifies.
Third is to help build out Ontario as a clean-energy superpower, able to export our energy – as we already do. We’re already a net exporter to New York and other places. We want to strengthen our clean-energy advantage and export technology and electricity around the world, particularly in the United States. [emphasis added]

I have long-standing concerns about exports.My first blog post to garner significant attention, and spur mainstream stories bringing comments from then Premier Dalton McGuinty, reported on the high exports and negative pricing of January 1st, 2011. “A full decade later I was still writing estimates on losses incurred on exporting electricity, which grew rapidly along with the growth in supply spurred by McGuinty’s Green Energy Act. This post is going to build off of another discussion on losses on exports in the context of “affordable electricity for families”, using a presentation I’ve added to reporting built on basic data shared from the system operator (IESO)..

screen capture from Power BI reporting

Anti-Nuclear by necessity

On January 30th the government of Ontario, currently headed by Doug Ford, announced it was advancing the refurbishment of the four “B” reactors at the Pickering Nuclear Generation Station (PNGS), Initial media response has been largely positive, with Ontario’s public broadcaster (TVO) noting, “ it’s hard to see a future government changing course”. Apparently TVO, and other news outlets, felt compelled to offer their readers articles opposed to the refurbishment for balance. At TVO the negative response came shortly after the news broke in an article by Taylor C. Noakes. Rebutting that work is one goal of this one, but it may be more important to explore the emerging tools for producing an article to counter a narrative in another.

There is a commendable aspect of TVO attaining the work by Noakes, who I believe to be ‘stringer’ - which is an independent producer of content: Noakes has produced multiple articles for, at least, TVO and Desmog, on a wide variety of topics. If you wanted an article with a perspective, Noakes is exactly the type of person you’d go to - particularly, if you’re familiar with Desmog and want an anti-nuclear position. The most obvious alternative approach, and the one taken by The Globe and Mail, is to publish an op-ed from a career antinuclear personality. Mark Winfield’s The folly of Ontario’s nuclear power play (subscription) is exactly what you’d expect from a person with a career based on opposing nuclear - I’ve previously highlighted his mid-2000’s publication at Pembina that planned for a nuclear-free Ontario by 2020 that would have had electricity-sector emissions 400% higher, and will simply emphasize that his status as an expert relies not on the the wisdom in his past work, but simply in his opposition to nuclear power.

Noakes’ stringer work may be enhanced with the emergence of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools. Given a topic a writer can simply use an AI tool such as that embedded with the Bing browser, or OpenAI’s tools (I tested only the free version), and get the skeleton of an article. Bing’s Co-pilot, responding to my prompting, “argument to oppose refurbishment of Pickering nuclear generating station”, produced bullet points supporting 5 themes: Environmental Concerns, Cost and Overruns, Safety and Aging Infrastructure, Changing Energy Landscape, and Public Consultation and Transparency. ChatGPT gave paragraphs supporting 7 possibilities for opposing: Cost, Safety Concerns, Environmental Impact, Technological Obsolescence, Public health, Opportunity cost and Community opposition. These themes do emerge with every announcement of continued nuclear operations.

To acquire an article opposing nuclear power in 2024 a polymath isn’t required, but mostly somebody who can wrap readily attainable content in a story. Noakes’ TVO story is titled:

The Ford government’s decision on nuclear will set Ontario back 30 years
OPINION: Our politicians keep subsidizing old technologies and industries — and putting opportunity and ideology ahead of basic economics

That sets the stage: a villain is presented (Ford, who heads what is actually Ontario’s government - but Ontario can’t be the villain), driven by ideology instead of rationality (a.k.a. ‘Basic economics’). You can almost hear a pantomime’s audience booing the modern “not following the science” villain..