WAR ON COAL: Ontario will shut down all of its coal-fired power plants. Pictured: Lambton generating station in Ontario.
Image: Flickr/Toban B.
By the end of the year, Ontario will become the first jurisdiction in North America to shut down almost its entire coal fleet.
Yesterday, the province announced that its last two large coal units will close before 2014, making more than 99 percent of the province's electricity generated from non-coal sources. It is a major shift for Ontario, which fired 25 percent of its grid from coal a decade ago.
"Today, all Ontarians can breathe a little easier," said Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty in a statement.
The two units slated for shutdown by the end of the year are the Lambton Generating Station and the Nanticoke Generating Station, which at its peak capacity of near 4,000 megawatts was one of the largest coal facilities in the world.
The closings are a result of a McGuinty plan to fight smog and pollution via coal plant closures launched in 2003, the year of his election. With yesterday's announcement, 17 of 19 original coal-fired units will have been shut down, the government said.
The only remaining plant is a small backup generator, said Tim Weis, an analyst at the Pembina Institute, an environmental think tank. It will close in 2014, he said.
Several dynamics made the efficient phaseout of coal possible, he said. The province owns its coal generating units, giving it significant power to determine the power mix, he explained.
Wind, natural gas filling the gap
To prepare for the coal phaseout, McGuinty introduced an aggressive energy law in 2009 establishing energy efficiency programs and a feed-in tariff providing generous financial benefits to renewable developers. Those efficiency programs have helped make Ontario one of the few jurisdictions in the world where energy demand is declining, rather than increasing, Weis said.
"This shows it is possible to do this in a jurisdiction with big electricity consumption," he said.
The 2009 law has not been without controversy -- and was recently challenged before the World Trade Organization -- but it has boosted the ability of renewable power to step in for coal, according to Weis.
Wind power has grown from 400 MW of provincial power six years ago to more than 2,000 MW now. By 2030, it is projected to provide roughly 10 percent of the province's electricity supply, despite having been a non-player in 2003.
Additionally, new natural gas plants are supplying much of the power formerly provided from coal generation, Weis said.
According to the Pembina Institute, the greenhouse gas emissions from Ontario's electricity sector have fallen from 40 million tons to 10 million tons over the past decade because of the coal plant closings.
The coal ban runs a risk of eventually raising electricity prices, said Dave Butler, executive director of the Canadian Clean Power Coalition, which represents electricity producers. It also could have an immediate effect on jobs, considering that several hundred workers are employed at Nanticoke and Lambert, he said.
U.S. impact minimal
It likely would not affect the U.S. coal industry, even though much of Ontario's former coal supply came from south of the border, he said.
See what we're tweeting about
15 Comments
Add CommentSo the truth is that due to fracking, natural gas has become less expensive and that is why Canada made the change. It made economic sense for Canada
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnbelievable. The propaganda machine in full force. No use whatsoever of "the N Word" when Nuclear supplies 1/2 of Ontario's power generation. Wind HAS NOT reduced Ontario's Coal consumption - that is an established fact. As-a-matter-of-fact, the Wind is mostly exported, while Ontarians pay 14 cents a kwh for the Wind they export it at an avg return of 1 cent per kwh. And what isn't exported just causes Nuclear Power to be dumped and Hydro to be spilled with zero cost savings and zero CO2 savings.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTHE REAL TRUTH is that Ontario has replaced its Coal Generation with Nuclear refurbs at Bruce and Pickering. Just amazing how McGoofy and his Green Energy cronies can hold a straight face while perpetuating despicable lies about their nutty Wind Energy Scam.
And Ontarians are paying 17 cents a kwh for their NG power generation vs 5-6 cents for the private Bruce power Nuclear generation & 3 cents for the OPG public owned Nuclear generation.
Did you see the part where Ontario also ramped up wind power generation and actually DECREASED its electricity consumption through efficiency? I agree that falling natural gas prices have a hand in hastening coal power's demise, but you have to look at the WHOLE picture! Otherwise, you're only looking at what you want to see and you'll miss out on the truth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd just to head off what I know you or somebody else will surely post in response to me...WIND POWER DOES REDUCE CO2 POLLUTION:
"The assertion that wind turbines don't reduce carbon emissions is a myth, according to conclusive statistical data obtained from National Grid and analysed here in the Guardian for the first time. With a new wind generation record of 4,131 megawatts set on 14 September, the question of how far the UK's wind generation fleet can help in meeting our climate targets is increasingly controversial. Now it can be shown that the sceptics who lobby against wind simply have their facts wrong."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/sep/26/myth-wind-turbines-carbon-emissions
Utilities are already used to dealing with variable loads and wind power just looks like a negative load to utilities. Spreading wind farms out over a larger geographical area means that temporary lulls in wind affect a smaller percentage of wind generation. New natural gas plants are coming on line that mesh well with variable renewable energy sources too.
Now if we can just repeal the specific exemptions from the Clean Air Act and the Clean Drinking Water Act that fracking enjoys, then we can be sure that EVERYBODY is playing by the same rules and we aren't putting ourselves at risk of spreading contamination to get all that shale gas. Don't want the government "picking winners" through preferental regulatory treatment, now do we?
Please provide some evidence to back up these accusations. Electricity export data and sales rates would be great. How do we know you aren't just making this stuff up?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNuclear power is only cheap because it has been allowed to offload the mountain of debt piled up during plant construction onto the taxpayers:
"As a result of the cost overruns and the poor performance of its nuclear reactors, Ontario Hydro was broken up into five companies in 1999. All of its generation assets were transferred to Ontario Power Generation (OPG). However, in order to keep OPG solvent, $19.4 billion of Ontario Hydro’s debt or unfunded liabilities associated with electricity generation facilities was transferred to the Ontario Electricity Financial Corporation (an agency of the Government of Ontario) as “stranded debt” or “unfunded liability”.2 More than three-quarters of the stranded debt was with respect to Ontario Hydro’s financially unsustainable nuclear liabilities.3
Ontario’s electricity consumers and taxpayers are required to pay-off the defunct Ontario Hydro’s stranded debt because all of its borrowings were guaranteed by the Government of Ontario. As a consequence, the Ontario Electricity Financial Corporation (OEFC) collects revenues from the following sources to help pay off the stranded debt.
A debt retirement charge of 0.7 cents per kWh, which is levied on all Ontario electricity consumers.
All of the provincial income tax payments from OPG, Hydro One and Ontario’s municipal electric utilities (e.g., Toronto Hydro).
All of the dividend payments from OPG and Hydro One to their sole shareholder, the Government of Ontario."
Oh, one other tidbit from Ontario's nuclear power experience makes it seem like these debt-laden reactors are really built to pile up returns for bondholders instead of actually generating electricity!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Between April 1, 1999 and March 31, 2010, Ontario’s electricity consumers and taxpayers have made annual payments totaling $19.603 billion to service and pay down the stranded debt. In other words, the total debt payments made by Ontario’s consumers and taxpayers since 1999 have now exceeded the original value of the stranded debt ($19.433 billion) — and we still owe $14.81 billion."
As long as the nuclear industry is more cosy with the governments that call the shots on these plants than the public that has to pay for them, we'll see the same cost overruns, defaults, restructurings, bailouts, etc. that we saw in the 70s and 80s.
Man, I just keep finding all this good info. Thanks for priming the pump, dwbd!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"To-date, OPG has re-built two nuclear reactors,
namely Pickering A Unit 4 which was
returned to service in 2003 and Pickering A
Unit 1 which was returned to service in 2005.
The average annual capacity utilization rate
of Unit 4 during the last four years (2006 to
2009) was 59%.10 In 2004 the OPG Review
Committee, which was chaired by John
Manley, recommended that OPG continue
with the Pickering A Unit 1 Re-Start based on
the assumption that it would have an average
annual capacity utilization rate of 85%.11
However, its actual average annual capacity
utilization rate during the last four years has
been only 69%.12 Therefore the average annual
capacity utilization rate of the Pickering
A Units 1 & 4 nuclear reactors during the past
four years was only 64%.
To-date Bruce Power has re-built two of its
nuclear reactors, namely, Bruce A Units 3 and
4. Their average annual capacity utilization
rate during the last four years was 75%.13
According to OPG, assuming a 64% annual
average capacity utilization rate, the Darlington
Re-Build Proposal’s cost of electricity
would rise to 8 to 10 cents per kWh (2009$).14
While the current Darlington reactors have
performed better than the fleet average, the
established pattern is for a large drop off in
performance as CANDU units age and there
is no precedent for re-built reactors achieving
capacity factors of 82% or better."
http://www.cleanairalliance.org/files/active/0/darlington.pdf
@ sault
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissince you seem to be very well informed and with a lot of figures on hand could you please inform us,
a) how much is the cost of wind generated electricity per kwh? including the grid extensions, maintenance, and presuming a life span of 20 to 30 years?
b) If one had 1 megawatt of installed capacity, ( in Ontario) how much would be available on average, at best and at worst.
c) How much gas or hydro power backup do you need for those wind generators, and how will that affect the cost of the electricity generated?
d) What is the cost per kwh at Darlington?
e) what is the cost per kwh at Pickering?
I am genuinely interested and would like to get a better insight.
I always take these statements about energy efficiency with a pinch of salt. Of course many companies have invested in their electrical infrastructure, and with modern technology savings are made. But in many places, and I am sure this affects Ontario as well to an extent, power demand is dropping because heavy and dirty industries are leaving and going to places where environmental strictures are lax and wages low. So don't kid yourself, you might just be entering a post industrial society.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisU.S. wind power is coming in at between 7 and 4 cents per kWh and the industry capacity factor ranges from 24% to over 40% with the average going north of 32% with improving technology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEVERY new power plant or rebuild requires changes / improvements to the grid. A new or increased capacity nuclear reactor will require greater transmission from the plant to load centers far away, or will have had the transmission capacity already in-place, sitting idle for years until it is fully utilized. Wind power is disbursed and farther from loads to be sure, but the exact expense varies a great deal depending on the wind farm.
See my post #3 to see why the whole "wind power needs backup generation" canard is bogus.
The Darlington rebuild costs are estimated here:
"On average, the actual costs of Ontario’s nuclear
projects have been 2.5 times greater than
their original cost estimates. If the Darlington
Re-Build’s actual cost exceeds OPG’s original
cost estimate range by 2.5 times then its final
cost will be $21.25 to $35 billion. As a consequence,
it will produce electricity at a cost
of 19 to 27 cents per kWh (assuming an 82%
average annual capacity utilization rate) or 24
to 37 cents per kWh (assuming a 64% average
annual capacity utilization rate).18"
http://www.cleanairalliance.org/files/active/0/darlington.pdf
You could be generous and give the Darlington rebuild the benefit of the doubt. 10 cents a kWh is generous enough and still almost 50% HIGER than the high range for wind electricity.
Come on, are you telling me that better building insulation, CFL / LED lighting and more efficient applinces have ZERO effect on electricity consumption? Do you have figures on changes in Ontario's industrial activity in 2009 - 2012? I don't know what portion of the decreasing energy demand is due to energy efficiency, but I'm not the one claiming that it is negligible either.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust for you Sault. Watch the Geothermal steam coming out of his ears. :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100136093/the-best-article-on-wind-farms-you-will-ever-read/
The best article on wind farms you will ever read.
James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything. He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books, including his most recent work Watermelons: How the Environmentalists are Killing the Planet, Destroying the Economy and Stealing Your Children's Future, also available in the US, and in Australia as Killing the Earth to Save It. His website is www.jamesdelingpole.com.
Can we all just agree that whatever else we think of the rest of the power-generating options, coal is the worst and should be phased out first? I think that Ontario deserves praise for this sensible move.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf it is replaced with a reliable & economical alternative that does not cripple energy hungry industries, yes. Otherwise it simply costs jobs & exports industry instead of products. Wind is just a sop to the greens.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSault once again you resort to an atrocious commenting style which is unfair and unethical. The topic IS: "How has Ontario reduced Coal Generation"? Answer: NOT due to Wind, mostly due to new Nuclear Refurbs. So you IMMEDIATELY avoid the point and go far afield dumping reams of cut-and-paste notes from some rabid anti-nuclear website, info that you don't understand, don't set up properly with YOUR OWN words, YOUR OWN argument. I would call that the shotgun approach. A classic way to avoid a serious discussion of an issue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCertainly it is true that gradually comment threads tend to veer off into other issues, but you don't wait for that, you just dump a dozen off-topic issues out in one big cut-and-paste special, with no setup, and no rationale of your own.
How would you like it if in a debate with some AGW deniers, they just started dumping a book-load of cut-and-paste argument from some AGW denier website, with no setup, no rationale and covering every aspect of AGW from one end to the other? A sure way to ruin a discussion thread.
I would be quite happy to discuss the multitude of topics you brought up, as time permits:
1) The OPG stranded debt,
2) The economics of Nuclear Power in Ontario
3) The economics of Wind Power in Ontario
4) The economics of Wind in general
5) Whether Wind reduces emissions
6) The Darlington Nuclear power station in Ontario
7) Energy Efficiency in Ontario
8) Is Energy Efficiency in general cost effective?
9) Capacity factors of Ontario Nuclear generation
10) Fracking for Natural Gas
11) Effectiveness of Dispersion of Wind Farms
And a rational DISCUSSION of the above should be spread over at least several comment threads not dumped all at once, totally off-topic.
Getting back on topic, Wind IS NOT reducing Coal generation in Ontario. Coal has been replaced by Nuclear refurbs and new (and very expensive) NG generation, NOT wind:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismorecoldair.blogspot.ca/p/wind-is-not-replacing-coal.html
Conclusion: ".. Far from replacing coal, wind makes it requisite to have alternative generation to fill in the frequent, and often lengthy, lapses in output.
Natural gas is replacing coal. And if there was no natural gas ...Wind would be enabling coal..."
ontariowindperformance.wordpress.com/2010/10/14/chapter-4-11-2-wind-replacing-coal/
"..So the premise that coal is being replaced by wind seems to be incorrect. Beyond that, fundamentally wind cannot replace coal because coal is being used to ramp up in response to the daily cycle of demand. Wind cannot do this, no matter how many turbines are built..."
ontario-wind-resistance.org/2012/03/14/ontario-coal-has-been-replaced-by-natural-gas-nuclear-not-wind/