|
I think the concerns expressed over the
building of cogen plants in the GTA may be missing an important
consideration.
I understand that there may be grid
stability arguments for replacing the coal-fired generation previously supplied
by Lakeview GS with cogen plants in the GTA. The
Lakeview Generating Station produced up to 300 MWe from 8 units
starting from 1 unit in 1961, reaching 8 in 1969. Operation continued
until 1993 when 4 were retired. The station provided peak power
generation from 1994 to April 30 2005. ( www.opg.com/ops/lakeviewfinal.pdf )
In the period 1998 to 2000 there was an initiative
to introduce a 550 MW natural gas fired combined cycle plant at the Lakeview
site. This didn't proceed.
Given current practices, a new nuclear generating
station would not be built in such locations.
I expect that there is a defensible
engineering argument for building cogen plants in Brampton, Mississauga,
and at Lakeview. There are other means to achieve the desired
electrical grid performance using generating stations that are more remote
from the load centres such as those implemented by Hydro Québec for the Montréal
area in particular following the ice storm. These require more
transmission lines which are not trivial to develop in built up areas and
electrical systems to maintain the power system stability / quality. (G-2
was previously credited with providing an essential stabilizing influence on the
HQ grid, but when I asked about how that would be accommodated during a G-2
refurbishment, I learned that electrical system alternatives have been
implemented.)
So, encouraging a private utility to build a cogen
plant with revenue guarantees must be very attractive compared to borrowing the
capital necessary to advance other schemes. Given the supply limitations
of natural gas and the price volatility, it might even be a good business
decision?
It's interesting to speculate about how these
problems will be addressed in the future when gas-fired cogen plants cease to be
a viable option. I find it hard to imagine that even "passively safe"
nuclear generators would be located with very small or no exclusion areas in
urban settings for some time to come. While the safety arguments may well
show that this should be acceptable, I think it will take public perception and
regulatory practice a long time to accommodate such practise.
The only thing that's obvious to me in all this is
that "the answer isn't blowing in the wind," notwithstanding the
enthusiasm Premier McGuinty and his hero David Suzuki have shown for
wind generators.
Bryan White
|