[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

dam-l Choices for Ontario Hydro



Herewith a more complete answer to Peter Solomon's question:
"Are there cost-efficient ways of making electrical power other than fossil
fuel burning (to which Ontario will have to return) and nuclear stations
which have been effective in other jurisdictions?"

NOT ENOUGH ELECTRICAL POWER?  
	It isn't electricity we need.  We need ways of cooling, heating, lighting,
running machines, appliances, electronic equipment.  Therefore, the
following questions are in order.    
	IS THIS WORK NEEDED?  Examples of unneeded work include streetlights on
during the day, air conditioning on while the central heating system is
working (as in a New York city office building where I worked for 2 years),
commercial buildings using electric lighting in areas where daylight is
plentiful, advertising billboards lighting up the night sky.
	CAN THIS WORK BE DONE USING A DIFFERENT POWER SOURCE?   I vacationed on
Monhegan Island this summer in an off-the-grid house that had a
photo-voltaic system with battery storage and a propane generator for backup
power.  In spite of several cloudy and rainy days, we didn't need the
propane generator.  Washing machine, lights, television, radio and small
appliances used the home-grown electricity.  The stove, refrigerator, water
heater and clothes dryer ran on propane gas as did several space heaters
that were for winter use.  
	When my electric clothes dryer broke down I replaced it with a low-tech
solar clothes dryer which consists of a length of rope and clothespins.  I
need neither electric nor gas air- conditioning.  Insulation plus tall sugar
maples on the south and west sides keep my house comfortable in hot weather.  
	Another low tech idea is the Princeton ice pond, so called because it was
developed at Princeton.  A shallow man-made pond freezes in winter providing
ice which is insulated with a material such as straw.  A system of blowers
and conduits sends ice-cooled air when and where it is needed   A cheese
factory in western New York installed a Princeton ice pond to meet its
cooling needs.
	In Quebec, 90% of new homes are heated with electricity from the Provincial
utility, Hydro Quebec.  When the Cree community of Ouje-Bougoumou was
established, the easiest way to heat their new homes and community buildings
would have been with electricity.  It also would have had the lowest
start-up costs.  But the Cree wanted nothing to do with electricity from
Hydro Quebec, whose Great Whale project had flooded vast areas of their
ancestral homeland.  Instead the Cree converted an unused boiler from an oil
burner to a sawdust burner.  Their fuel comes from discarded piles of
sawdust at nearby lumber mills.  Heat from their waste sawdust burning
boiler is piped to every building in the community to provide both hot water
and space heating.  Their system promotes energy self-sufficiency, keeps
money in the community, provides a few jobs for community members, and costs
much less over time than the electricity alternative.  	
             The high school in Townshend Vermont was first heated with
electricity and later converted to wood.  When the school opened in 1970,
the electric utility said that nuclear power was going to make electricity
too cheap too meter.  By 1991 the yearly heating bill was $60,000 and
rising.  Energy costs were the single largest budget item after salaries and
benefits.  At that time in southern Vermont, electricity costs had risen to
$32 per million BTUs, and wood, a renewable local resource, cost about $3
per million BTUs.  The school chose a wood chip gasifier made by
Vermont-based CHIPTEC.  The payback period is under 10 years.  Over a 20
year lifetime it will save the town $1,238,000.  The system is efficient,
generates almost no hydrocarbons, is easier to maintain than the previous
system, and creates less than 1% ash and soot,.  Residents collect the wood
ash to use as fertilizer.  Even if every school in the state emulated
Townshend, Vermont has plenty of wood for sustainable use. 	
	CAN THE SAME WORK BE DONE WITH A FRACTION OF THE ELECTRICITY NOW BEING
USED?  The answer is YES and answers abound.  Here are a few. 
	Super-efficient refrigerators have been developed in response to SERP, the
Super- Efficient Refrigerator Program, which was funded by 24 U.S.
utilities.  The carrot was a $30 million prize and the winner was the
Whirlpool Corp., maker of Whirlpool, Kitchen Aid and Kenmore brands.  These
refrigerators beat the 1992 federal efficiency requirements by 70% and the
tighter 1993 standards by 40%. They are good for the environment and are
proving popular with the public.  Electricity savings are estimated to be
$960 over a 15-year lifetime - about the same amount as the purchase price.
The federal government has entered into a 10 year "energy savings
performance contract" with XENERGY which will develop and implement
energy-efficiency measures at federal and state facilities.  Greater
efficiency in heating, lighting, cooling and industrial processes will save
both energy and taxpayer dollars.  	
	The Japanese use energy twice as efficiently as we do.  Furthermore they
are increasing their efficiency at a faster rate than we are.  The billions
in savings they realize from energy efficiency enhance their competitiveness
in international markets.  I figured out what we would have saved on a per
capita basis if we were as efficient as the Japanese.  In one single year,
1987, we would have saved $239 billion.  
	National Audubon has a "new" office in a turn-of-the-century building in
Manhattan.  Because of careful design decisions, the building now uses 60%
less energy than it did before it was renovated.
	Going back many hundreds of years we can learn from the cliff dwellers of
the American Southwest.  They built their homes into south-facing cliffs
where they were shaded from the fierce summer sun and received light and
warmth in the winter.  Passive solar design is the simplest and cheapest way
to tap renewable energy yet seems to get the least attention.  It involves
building it right in the first place so that the sun can provide a large
fraction of the structure's heat and daytime light.  Probably Michio Kaku is
right.  Passive (and active) solar design gets the least attention because
it can't be metered.  If you read by daylight or heat your house with the
sun, there is no money in it for the utility and its shareholders.    	The
Long Island Lighting Company charges the highest electric rates in the
nation.  A friend who lives on Long Island, James Corrigan, within a year
cut his bills in half without giving up anything   
	In 1992 Amory Lovins said "Today, in fact, the best technologies on the
market can save about three-quarters of all electricity now used in the
United States, while providing unchanged or improved services".  
	Everyone should have the opportunity to reduce their electric usage by 75%
or as a MINIMUM 50%.  What is needed is universally available information
(as easily available as information about Joe Camel) and easy access to
affordable financing.  A comprehensive demand side management (DSM) program
is one good way to provide both information and financing.

	BENEFITS OF CONSERVATION AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY
	Conservation and energy efficiency, as in DSM programs, are a fast,
environmentally friendly and inexpensive way to produce additional
electricity.  In New York State DSM programs have provided many benefits.
Here is a list from the Energy Conservation Fact Sheet put out by the Pace
Energy Project, Pace University School of Law, March 22, 1996.  The
following statistics represent losses that will occur if energy
efficiency/conservation programs are not retained as part of utility
restructuring.
	*Energy conservation initiatives, mainly in the form of demand side
management (DSM) programs that were implemented during the period 1990-1995,
are now saving over 5 billion kilowatt-hours of electric power per year -
enough electricity to serve 750,000 households.
	*These efforts by utilities have significantly reduced New York's electric
bill.  Over their lives, programs implemented between 1990 and 1995 caused a
net reduction in electric power production expenses of about $1.2 billion
(chiefly through savings in fuel, operations and maintenance costs).
	*These efforts avoided the burning of large quantities of fossil fuels:  30
million barrels of oil; 5.45 million tons of coal; and 180 million MCF of
natural gas.  Almost all of this fossil fuel would have come from outside of
NYS and much from foreign sources.  
	*Energy efficiency has been an engine for economic development in New York,
generating over 31,400 job years.  These jobs are created by the design and
installation of energy efficient devices, by retro-fitting existing
buildings, and by the "wealth effect", that is, the transfer of spending
from electric bills and fuel imports to other goods and services.
	*Another benefit is substantially reduced statewide emissions from
generating plants:  198,080 tons less of SO2 and 63,000 tons less of NOx.
In 1995, this equaled 8.5% of annual statewide utility emissions of these
pollutants.  Also reduced were CO2 emissions by 40 million tons, small
particulates (PM10) by 7,000 tons and heavy metal emissions from oil and
coal fired units.
	*Energy conservation programs are economic winners because benefits exceed
costs by a margin of nearly 3 to 1.  In other words, for every $1 spent on
conservation programs, the utility, its customers, and society receive $3 in
benefits.
	*Utility energy efficiency programs also generate various indirect benefits
including fuel diversity, reduced environmental compliance costs and reduced
hemorrhaging of wealth from our State.
 
	BACK TO THE QUESTION
	I could go into the present restructuring of the power industry and its
effects, one of which is a drastic cutback in DSM programs in New York. and
elsewhere.  However, important as it is, it may not contribute to answering
Peter Solomon's question, "Are there cost-efficient ways of making electric
power other than fossil fuel burning (to which Ontario will have to return)
and nuclear stations which have been effective in other jurisdictions?"
	Several cost-effective and environmentally benign approaches to solving a
shortage of electricity have been discussed:  ELIMINATION - eliminate work
that is harmful or unnecessary;  SUBSTITUTION - use another source of power
to do the same work that electricity is doing;  CONSERVATION AND ENERGY
EFFICIENCY - through demand side management and other methods, use less
electricity to do the same work.   	
	The value of conservation and energy efficiency cannot be over-emphasized.
Energy conservation initiatives are winners - creating jobs, improving the
economy, lowering ratepayer bills, enhancing the environment, reducing
dependence on foreign power and foreign oil, eliminating the need to destroy
cultures (e.g. the Cree), wage war (as in the Persian Gulf) and commit
murder (e.g. Ken Saro-Wiwa and his fellow Ogoni) while IMPROVING quality of
life and the economy.

	There are also SUPPLY SIDE SOLUTIONS that the utility can implement, such
as the following.   
	COGENERATION was an important source of electricity in the early years of
this century, meeting about 15% of our electricity needs.  Cogenerated
electricity was produced mostly by harnessing waste heat from industrial
processes.  The increasing availability of relatively cheap power from
utilities caused cogen to languish.  As electricity prices rose, cogen
became economically attractive again, but regulations stood in the way.  For
example, a chemical plant that harnessed its waste heat to produce
electricity could not sell any of its excess power without being treated as
a utility, subject to all the rules and regulations of a utility.  In the
aftermath of the oil shocks of the 70s, most of these inhibiting regulations
were eliminated, a process that is continuing with the present move to
deregulate the utilities and introduce competition.   
	Cogen today often takes the form of new combined cycle gas-fired plants
which can produce power at about 2.7 cents kwh which includes the cost of
building the plant as well as operating costs.  This is less than the mere
operating cost of some existing utility dinosaurs, especially nuclear
plants.  Ideally we would use conservation and energy efficiency to greatly
reduce electricity use and, with all due speed, start replacing nuclear and
fossil fueled power with the sun and sun derived power such as wind.  In a
less than ideal world, we may need super efficient gas fired plants as a
bridge to a sustainable energy future.    
	FUEL CELLS can improve the way electricity is generated.  Fuel cells (FCs)
are like chemical engines with no moving parts.  They use a catalyst to
oxidize the fuel rather than burning fuel to make electricity.  For that
reason, FCs produce far fewer emissions than the conventional method of
burning fuel.  They are more efficient than almost all other small-scale
generators, provide high-quality power which is excellent for running
sensitive equipment, and are quiet, compact and modular.  FCs may be ideal
for DISTRIBUTED GENERATION in "load pockets", which are areas where
transmission or distribution constraints limit competition.  Emissions will
approach zero as renewable sources of electricity are increasingly used to
produce hydrogen which is the ideal FC fuel.  According to NRDC, FCs
currently have the ability to generate high- quality electricity at
competitive prices.  
	For information about a residential fuel cell using propane or natural gas,
see the New York Times , Oct. 21, 1997, p. A14, "In a Step Toward a Better
Electric Car, Company Uses Fuel Cell to Get Energy From Gasoline".  The
company, Plug Power, says it will have units commercially available in 2
years.  The unit would be "roughly the size of a small dishwasher" and "You
won't have to pay a penny for the device," but it will be metered and charge
8 to 10 cents per kwh depending on propane or natural gas prices. This price
would not be attractive to current residential users in Ontario where rates
are lower.  However, in "remote" locations, i.e. sites half a kilometer or
more from the grid, the unit could be a viable alternative to paying
thousands of dollars in hookup costs.  It would save me between 33% and 16%
on my electric bill because I am one of the 25 million households in the
U.S. that pay more than 8 to 10 cents per kilowatt-hour  
	PHOTO-VOLTAICS are cost-effective now in certain applications, for example
in remote locations where extending the transmission and distribution system
makes delivery of conventional power too expensive.
	My parents had an electric hot water heater timed to go on in the wee hours
of the morning when electric rates were lower.  PEAK LOAD PRICING - charging
higher rates at times of high demand and lower rates when demand is low - is
a simple way to distribute demand more evenly throughout the day thus
lowering peak load needs.  Lowering peak load needs can lessen the need to
buy imported power or the need to build expensive new power plants. 

	Ontario Hydro had been getting 60% to 70% of its power from its 22 nuclear
plants.  With 7 down, Ontario Hydro will lose in the neighborhood of 20% to
22% of its total capacity, assuming the closed plants and the open plants
are of relatively  equal capacity.  I understand that the utility plans to
restart mothballed coal plants.  This would be a CHOICE not a NECESSITY.
	Consider what Los Angeles did at the time of the first oil shock in the
early seventies.  Los Angeles was dependent on low sulfur oil from the
Middle East and their supply was threatened.  The city put together a
committee to figure out how to respond to the problem.  A plan was developed
which called upon each sector of the community (industrial, commercial, and
residential) to reduce its use of electricity by a specified percentage.
Although suggestions were made (e.g. turn off unused lights) how to do it
was left up to each electricity user.  The Los Angeles Dodgers met their
target by starting their games half an hour earlier.  
	The plan included penalties.  A utility customer who failed to reduce usage
by the specified percentage would be hit with a hefty surcharge.  Not only
were no penalties ever needed, each of the 3 sectors cut usage by more than
the mandated amount.  The numbers that come to mind are 14% and 17%, that
is, the goal was an overall reduction in electricity use of 14% and the
actual reduction was 17%.  (Don't quote me on the numbers because I am
recalling what I read 18 years ago.)  
	Today savings through conservation and energy efficiency are easier.  For
example, we have compact fluorescent bulbs which provide one of the fastest
ways to reduce usage.  Peak load pricing is a relatively fast and easy way
to make existing capacity go farther by distributing demand.  And there are
appliance efficiency standard, DSM programs, building codes.that promote
energy efficiency, low tech ideas (a rope and clothespins is only one), flat
rates that eliminate discounts for greater use, net metering to encourage
individual generation of power.        	Ontario Hydro is a Provincial
utility whose primary responsibility is to the people of Ontario.  Investor
owned utilities, on the other hand, have a primary responsibility to put
money in the pockets of their shareholders while customer interests take
second place.  
	Will Ontario Hydro choose a course that is in the best interests of the
people of Ontario or will they act like an investor owned utility? 
     
	Betty Quick, Energy Committee Co-Chair, Sierra Club/Atlantic Chapter

Note to Peter Solomon.  I would greatly appreciate an answer to the
following question: Which nuclear stations have been effective and in what
other jurisdictions?