Showing posts with label IESO. Show all posts
Showing posts with label IESO. Show all posts

Friday, 10 February 2012

Ontario’s power glut means possible nuclear plant shutdowns



Surplus base-load generation (SBG) has become an issue lately.  It occurs when Ontario's "must run" electricity sources (predominantly nuclear and hydro but also wind and solar) exceed Ontario's minimum demand.  SBG typically occurs on weekends or late evenings when Ontario's tie-lines can't export the surplus.

The IESO has formed a committee (SE-91) to find solutions to the problem.  Their initial proposal was a band-aid approach to curtail wind production during periods of SBG.  The root cause of the problem, of course, is that Ontario's nuclear capacity has gradually grown even as the province's demand has flattened.  Fortunately, Paul Murphy, the CEO of the IESO, has the vision and courage to speak out against the nuclear lobby.

The original article is here.


The Ottawa Citizen
February 6, 2012
Ian MacLeod



OTTAWA — For at least eight hours Monday, Ontario is once again forecast to produce more electricity than it consumes, and the recurring glut has one top energy executive warning of temporary nuclear power plant shutdowns.
“We have largely been able to avoid nuclear shutdowns to deal with the (surplus) conditions but this may not be the case in the near future,” Paul Murphy, head of the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), recently told an industry gathering.
His comment is raising questions about Ontario’s plans to boost nuclear power as the province’s chief source of energy.
Nuclear-generated power supplies about 57 per cent of Ontario’s electricity. Based on the province’s assumption that demand will grow moderately over the long term, multi-billion-dollar projects are contemplated for new reactors and refurbishments of existing ones.
The problem is, unlike wind and some other forms of power production, nuclear reactors can’t easily be turned off when demand for electricity drops.
Returning them to full operating status can take two to four days and sometimes longer, making nuclear the least flexible portion of the supply mix at a time when demand is increasingly finicky.
And since electricity can’t be stored and must be used as soon as it is generated, the resulting “surplus baseload generation” in the system has to be exported to neighbouring provinces and states, usually at a bargain price, until the IESO can rebalance supply with demand.
In some cases, “negative pricing” is required. Ontario electricity producers shelled out $35 million in the first six months of last year alone to get neighbouring jurisdictions to take surplus power, up sharply from the same period in 2010, when negative pricing amounted to $4.2 million.
The supply surpluses have become increasingly common since 2005 and are expected to continue for at least a few more years, said Murphy.
Yet some surplus periods, which are forecast based on weather predictions and historic patterns, sometimes only last for a few hours.
“We need to find alternative ways to address (surpluses) to avoid using a multiday nuclear shutdown to address surplus conditions that could last for only a few short hours,” said Murphy.
“Given the potential of quick swings from surplus to shortage, those actions could have greater consequences in the future if the shutdown nuclear unit is not available by the time we need it again.”
Last June 8, for example, he said Ontario was exporting “everything we could to keep supply in line only to declare an energy emergency alert just 12 hours later. Demand climbed to the point where we were using every available megawatt in Ontario to meet that demand.”
Murphy’s remark about potentially and temporarily shutting down power reactors casts doubt on some fundamental assumptions of the province’s energy planning, says Mark Winfield, an associate professor in the faculty of environmental studies at York University.
“Given the province is theoretically committed to building a new nuclear plant and is considering refurbishment decisions on Bruce B (reactors), the implication is, one, you shouldn’t be adding supply on that scale and, two, if you’re going to add supply, it probably should be supply that you can turn off when you don’t need it,” says Winfield, who also co-chairs the school’s Sustainable Energy Imitative.
“It’s the IESO whose job it is to have their finger on the pulse of the system and also to be looking ahead (and it is) basically saying that potentially some pretty fundamental assumptions underlying planning for the system for the past decade need to revisited.”
Contributing factors to the excess supply include the global economic slump, consumer and industry conservation measures. and the Ontario economy’s transition away from manufacturing and resource-processing.
Seasonally, the situation typically worsens in spring and fall, when furnaces and air conditioners are turned off, and spring runoff forces hydro facilities to “spill” the water rather than store it for peak periods.
Additional factors will be the return to service of two refurbished reactors at the Bruce generation station near Kincardine and the increasing quantities of renewable energy coming on to the grid under Ontario’s Green Energy Act.

Thursday, 26 January 2012

Truthiness isn't good enough




Enterprise Bulletin
Letter to the Editor
Robert Knox
January 24, 2012

“TRUTHINESS” ISN’T GOOD ENOUGH

Things were a little tense in the Knox household when my wife read Kevin Elwood’s letter published in Friday’s (January 20) Enterprise Bulletin. Kate wanted to leave immediately for St Lucia so we could start spending the money that Mr. Elwood says I am earning from wind turbines.
Unfortunately, I had to tell her that Mr. Elwood just made that up.
I have no financial interest in any wind project. Never have. Other than receiving some remuneration for work done on wind turbine development in the last 10 years, I haven’t received a dollar from wind turbines.
Too bad. Investing in new, clean, renewable energy and helping farmers use their land for this purpose is sensible and commendable. I just don’t have the financial resources to do it.
But I contribute in other ways such as writing letters - pro bono by the way - debunking what wind opponents say about wind turbines.
Wind opponents say lots of things that are inaccurate, not true or sound true but aren’t. In other words, they indulge in “truthiness”.
Most of what Mr. Elwood says in his letter is in this category.
Mr. Elwood says that two colleagues and I established Chinodin Wind Power in 2002 to do the initial development work for what eventually became Canadian Hydro Developers’ Melancthon/Amaranth project. This is true and we are proud of it.
We sold the Melancthon and the Plateau projects because we didn’t have the financial resources, experience, and expertise to complete large projects.
Mr. Elwood says wind projects are subsidized. They aren’t. They are financed through 20 year power purchase agreements. People pay for the power they consume.
Wind turbines aren’t a disaster. They produced 2.6% of Ontario’s electricity in 2011. Ontario’s Independent Electricity Systems Operator (IESO) says that wind generators are playing an increasingly important role in meeting demand for electricity.
Wind turbines will provide 5% of Ontario’s electricity needs in the next few years. How and why would this create an “economic catastrophe” as Mr. Elwood says? This statement is beyond “truthy”. It is unbelievable.
As long as wind opponents keep saying things like this, I will keep correcting the record.
Mind you, the editor may decide that EB readers have had enough of this dialogue and cut us off.
Not a bad idea.

Robert Knox,
Collingwood

And here's the letter that kicked this off:

WHAT'S WITH LETTER WRITER AND TURBINES?

I have read the recent letter exchanges between Robert Knox and local residents raising their concerns over wind turbine developments proposed in their communities with interest. I began to wonder, why is Mr Knox so quick to refute any opposition to wind turbines? What's in it for him?
So, just as I did when I learned of wind turbines being proposed on land adjoining to mine, I did some research. Well it is very obvious why Mr Knox is pro wind turbine. Turns out he is the forefather of wind turbines in the province of Ontario.
Robert Knox was a principal in Chinodin Wind Power. This is the company that initially signed up landowners for the Shel­burne wind turbines now owned by Transalta. Chinodin sold the leases to Canadian Hydro Devel­opers in 2004 for profit. Mr Knox then went on to sign land owners and initiate the Maxwell Wind Farm under Chinodin's name. This project, too, was sold to IPC for money.
Anyone can quickly see why Mr Knox is quick to defend tur­bines.
This just once again proves what I have learned to be the sole interest of all persons par­ticipating in wind turbine devel­opments: making money and lots of it. Not protecting our environment or contributing to our economy they all go on about.
Everyone is now learning that this grossly over-subsidised industry is not sustainable or a reliable replacement for present power generation and then to top it all off it is very invasive to the communities it is developed in.
Ontario's Green Energy Act and wind turbines are a disaster without a disaster and leading us to an economic catastrophe in Ontario.
So Mr Knox... drop your attack on great people like Lorrie Gillis, the board of the Collingwood Regional Airport, and others who are standing up and pro­tecting the communities they live in and the economies they support.
It takes a healthy sustainable economy to support the protec­tion of the environment. We are spending our hard earned after tax dollars to do so with no hope of earning profit.
Looks to me like that's what's in turbines for you!
KEVIN ELWOOD
Commercial Pilot and Nursery
Grower
Clearview Township


Wednesday, 21 December 2011

Reader Beware!



This is a guest blog by Robert Knox

Go to the Ontario Wind Resistance web site, that is the former Wind Concerns Ontario web site. Scroll down to the bottom of the page. You will find a feed that appears to be connected to Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator’s (IESO) web site. The feed reads as follows, with the numbers changing hourly:
Total demand: 18250 MW (4:00 PM EST - Dec. 19, 2011) ** Total generation: 18978 MW (Dec. 19 - 15:00-16:00) ** Excess generation: 728 MW ** WIND: 1003 MW: 5.5% of demand, 5.3% of generation, 137.8% of excess generation
If you click on the header it will take you to a link to a web site “aweo.org-Industrial Wind Energy Opposition” which turns out to operated by an American wind opponent, Eric Rosenbloom.
The “feed” is made to look like part of the official IESO web site but it is not. “Deceit” you cry. “Liar! Liar! Pants on fire” you mutter.
You would be wrong.
All the information about demand and generation is correct including the level of electricity Ontario’s system generated between 3:00 and 4:00 PM on December 19, 2001.  The difference is that IESO doesn’t monitor wind generation as a portion of “excess” or “shortfalls”. It is irrelevant. The IESO only cares that the supply is there when Ontario’s consumers need it.
IESO balances the “[…] supply of and demand for electricity in Ontario and then directs its flow across the province's transmission lines.” It doesn’t matter the source of the electricity, only that the system is in balance. Of course, IESO cares passionately about “excesses” and “shortfalls” within the system.
So what’s going on?
Wind opponents, including Ontario Wind Resistance, Wind Concerns Ontario and aweo.org-Industrial Wind Energy Opposition want you to believe that wind generation is a problem, that it is not reducing carbon emissions, that is effectively waste.
They also want you to think that, somehow, wind creates the “excesses” and “shortfalls”, that they wouldn’t exist but for wind.
Of course, that isn’t true.
What is true is what this site said recently: electricity produced by wind turbines is helping to reduce carbon emissions from Ontario’s power system using a “fuel” that is totally renewable and costs nothing.
What’s wrong with that?
Nothing, but wind opponents don’t want you to know it.    

Thursday, 29 September 2011

Electric industry making great strides integrating wind and solar


ISO/RTO Council Releases Briefing Paper on Variable Energy Resources

TORONTOAug. 30, 2011 /CNW/ - The ISO/RTO Council today released a briefing paper on Variable Energy Resources, System Operations and Wholesale Markets. This paper looks at the efforts being made by independent system operators (ISOs) and regional transmission organizations (RTOs) to integrate variable energy resources.
Renewable resources - primarily wind and solar - are the resources most likely to fulfill the objectives of state and provincial renewable energy targets, feed-in tariff programs, as well as national and regional climate policy goals.
The variable nature of these resources is prompting changes in market design and system operations. Conventional electricity generating resources are relatively stable, schedulable and controllable, and markets and system operating procedures were originally designed around these characteristics. Effectively and reliably integrating variable resources has spurred the industry to develop new approaches, new processes and new tools.
"As an industry we are making great strides in harnessing the power of variable energy resources," said Paul Murphy, President and CEO of Ontario's Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) and 2011-2012 Chair of the ISO/RTO Council. "Effectively integrating this new supply is a long-term process that requires us to refine our respective systems, modify our operating procedures, and make adjustments to our markets for energy, operating reserve and ancillary services."
The briefing paper is available on the IRC website at http://www.isorto.org/atf/cf/%7b5B4E85C6-7EAC-40A0-8DC3-003829518EBD%7d/IRC_VER-BRIEFING_PAPER-AUGUST_2011.PDF. A more comprehensive paper has been filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and is available at http://www.isorto.org/site/c.jhKQIZPBImE/b.4344503/k.83C1/FERC_Filings.htm.
The ISO/RTO Council (IRC) is an industry organization consisting of representatives from independent system operators (ISOs) and regional transmission organizations (RTOs) across North America. In aggregate, the 10 member organizations serve two-thirds of electricity consumers in the United States and more than half of Canada's population. The IRC works collaboratively to develop effective processes, tools, and standard methods for improving competitive electricity markets across North America. Its goal is to balance reliability considerations with market practices, resulting in efficient, robust markets that provide competitive and reliable service to electricity users.