Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Environment & Energy

Showing Original Post only (View all)

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
Mon Feb 6, 2012, 07:36 PM Feb 2012

Ontario's power glut means possible nuclear plant shutdowns [View all]

Ontario's power glut means possible nuclear plant shutdowns

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...


http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Ontario+power+glut+means+possible+nuclear+plant+shutdowns/6105634/story.html

The more renewables are installed the more this becomes an existential problem for coal and nuclear. They are forced to shut down more and more often, meaning that the amount of power they sell is reduced.

Fuel as a portion of their overhead is rather small,and the reduced sales lowers their income by more than it reduces their fuel costs; meaning they have a shortfall which has to be made up by charging more for the power they *are* able to sell.

This increase in cost, in turn, makes renewables more competitive leading to more capacity being installed.

A perfect descending spiral for both coal and nuclear unless governments step in to prop them up with artificially high prices on the electricity they produce.

73 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
They talk like this is a problem Demeter Feb 2012 #1
"...step in to prop them up with artificially high prices on the electricity they produce." Dead_Parrot Feb 2012 #2
The price for electricity from renewable generation are declining kristopher Feb 2012 #3
So, you're still not addressing the actual energy produced, then? Dead_Parrot Feb 2012 #4
FUZZY MATH!!! PamW Feb 2012 #5
If nuclear bad is so bad, why do its opponents need to engage in this type of activity?? FBaggins Feb 2012 #6
So you are claiming that civilian nuclear reactors are not based on military research? kristopher Feb 2012 #7
Does a civilian reactor, or a military material prep reactor crank out a completed W88 warhead pit? AtheistCrusader Feb 2012 #8
Your desperation is showing kristopher Feb 2012 #9
That is a more reasonable statement. AtheistCrusader Feb 2012 #10
Military spending was not included in the 1% kristopher Feb 2012 #12
That is quite a lot more budget than I would have guessed. AtheistCrusader Feb 2012 #15
Price-Anderson again PamW Feb 2012 #23
Interesting analogy Dead_Parrot Feb 2012 #11
Gingrich is going to build us a moonbase XemaSab Feb 2012 #17
AND HYDROGEN HYPERCARS FOR ALL! Dead_Parrot Feb 2012 #24
WRONG WRONG WRONG!!! PamW Feb 2012 #22
Do you know where nuclear weapons "pits" came from? PamW Feb 2012 #20
Yes, I'm aware of this. AtheistCrusader Feb 2012 #21
WRONG Location!! PamW Feb 2012 #30
Not wrong. AtheistCrusader Feb 2012 #31
You said Pantex was in Paducah PamW Feb 2012 #32
Yes, I'm sure the Department of Energy doesn't know where the fuck this plant is. AtheistCrusader Feb 2012 #33
The only disagreement.... PamW Feb 2012 #34
It is irrelevant since your assertion of fact in post #5 was, yet again, false. kristopher Feb 2012 #38
BALONEY!!!! PamW Feb 2012 #39
Your reasoning is faulty and self serving kristopher Feb 2012 #41
More nonsense of course. FBaggins Feb 2012 #42
What competitive advantage does the liability cap give over alternative distribution systems? kristopher Feb 2012 #43
None to speak of FBaggins Feb 2012 #44
That was the answer - your trucking example isn't an accurate parallel kristopher Feb 2012 #45
The accident was your fault... not the hazmat truck. FBaggins Feb 2012 #47
It is still the same thing - "competitive advantage" kristopher Feb 2012 #49
None. FBaggins Feb 2012 #51
That isn't accurate - "avoided costs" kristopher Feb 2012 #52
In order to be an "avoided" cost it first must be a cost that would otherwise be paid. FBaggins Feb 2012 #56
If your statement is true then why does the nuclear industry LOVE the Price Anderson Act? kristopher Feb 2012 #58
Next question (while you're dodging the first one). FBaggins Feb 2012 #46
Why don't you just lay out the information you think is relevant kristopher Feb 2012 #48
The argument was made clearly... your avoidance is equally clear. FBaggins Feb 2012 #50
In other words you have no data, just your usual hyperbole. kristopher Feb 2012 #53
Still avoiding? Very well... next question. FBaggins Feb 2012 #57
Externalized costs are not the same as a subsidy kristopher Feb 2012 #59
Renewables have to be subsidized... PamW Feb 2012 #63
Costs for renewables are declining, costs for nuclear are rising. kristopher Feb 2012 #64
The argument has no data to support it. See post 58 kristopher Feb 2012 #60
At least nuclear power has the Brookhaven study... PamW Feb 2012 #62
Glad you brought that up kristopher Feb 2012 #65
Fuzzy math again PamW Feb 2012 #66
Nope kristopher Feb 2012 #67
I've told you before.. PamW Feb 2012 #68
I don't care what you accept. kristopher Feb 2012 #69
Then you will never convince me. PamW Feb 2012 #70
Pam you make things up out of whole cloth and... kristopher Feb 2012 #71
Sure - I'd like the links PamW Feb 2012 #72
GLADLY!!! PamW Feb 2012 #19
Continuing... PamW Feb 2012 #35
All of the replies to the OP are totally off point kristopher Feb 2012 #13
Or, that too much renewable energy without storage will fuck your grid Dead_Parrot Feb 2012 #14
Not the same thing at all. kristopher Feb 2012 #16
. XemaSab Feb 2012 #18
S'alright Dead_Parrot Feb 2012 #25
Perhaps the beer is why you don't grasp why you're wrong about the nature of the issue. kristopher Feb 2012 #26
Yes, they are. Dead_Parrot Feb 2012 #27
The renewables produce what they produce kristopher Feb 2012 #28
Yes kris, they do produce what they produce... Dead_Parrot Feb 2012 #29
The nuclear plants have to shut down because they can't sell their electricity kristopher Feb 2012 #36
Post removed Post removed Feb 2012 #37
That's a bunch of smelly bovine byproducts... and you well know it. FBaggins Feb 2012 #40
So you are objecting to the paper using "shut down" instead of "shut off"? kristopher Feb 2012 #54
??? Pretty wild spin there. FBaggins Feb 2012 #55
Wind always sells their output kristopher Feb 2012 #61
kick kristopher Feb 2012 #73
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Ontario's power glut mean...»Reply #0