Randal Leavitt wrote:
Cost Benefit Analysis: Replacing Ontario's Coal-Fired Electricity Generation
The results of this analysis suggest that Scenario 3 (Nuclear/Gas) is likely to yield the greatest net benefit of the four scenarios analysed.
Note that this scenario doesn't involve ANY new nuke plant construction :
2.2.3 Scenario 3 - Nuclear/Gas
With Scenario 3 (Nuclear/Gas), less electricity is generated from gas than is the case with Scenario 2 (All Gas). The difference in electricity generation comes from refurbished nuclear stations.
Given the lower overall generation with gas, some single-cycle gas turbines were included and were designed to be used for meeting a portion of the peak demand. Using the more expensive combined cycle technology for all of the gas-generated electricity in this scenario would not be reasonable given the much lower load factors. Most of the base load demand would be met through bringing existing, non-operating nuclear units back on line. More specifically, three additional nuclear units were assumed to be brought back on line at Pickering A (Units 1, 2 and 3). As well, Units 1 and 2 at the Bruce nuclear plant were assumed to be brought on line by 2007.
......specifically, the Ontario Ministry of Energy is NOT interested in new nukes :
2.1 Scenario Design Process
The four basic scenarios analysed in this report were initially conceptualised by the Ontario Ministry of Energy and were included in the original scope of work.<end quote>
....although one might hope that refurbishment eventually leads to replacement.