Who Has the Power? Portlands Energy Centre Shows Short-Term Thinking.
Friday February 17th 2006, 9:24 am
Filed under: Toronto, Urban Design, Urban Planning

Who Has the Power? Portlands Energy Centre Shows Short-Term Thinking
By Gregory D. Morrow

Rather than build a short-term stop-gap measure, the Ontario Power Generation (OPG) Corporation should increase the incoming line capacity for Toronto and undertake a major power generation plant in a location that can generate much more capacity than what is being proposed on Toronto’s Portlands. This is what is required in the long-term, because the proposed Portlands plant will only fill the City’s needs for about 4 years at which time we will be having the same debate over Toronto’s energy shortfall. Given the difficulty getting the Portlands plant online in 2 years (when Toronto will face a shortfall), the increased line capacity will allow the import of power in the short-term, and will be in place when new province-wide capacity is built in the years ahead (which will be necessary regardless of the fate of the Portlands). It’s a smarter choice for Toronto.

The Province of Ontario has announced plans to build a brand new power plant in downtown Toronto. Facing a shortfall of energy in the coming years, everyone agrees that Toronto needs power. However, short-term reactionary thinking cannot replace long-term planning. This statement from the Star article sums it up pretty well:

“Toronto’s hydro crunch forced the province into an about-face as Energy Minister Donna Cansfield ordered a controversial new electricity plant — rejected last year as too pricey — built on the waterfront.”

I typically agree with the Toronto Star editorial board on many issues. But on this issue, I disagree with their support of the project. The Portlands plant runs counter to local planning waterfront revitalization planning efforts, which have been on-going for several years — a redevelopment plan that will net the city’s millions in additional tax revenue. Not only will the plant be built, but the Province has decided that the existing out-of-service plant (the Hearn plant at 440 Unwin Ave) is too small to fit the bill, so an entirely new plant will be built immediately adjacent. Toronto Mayor David Miller recognizes the need for power, but is hoping to combine conservation with a retrofit of the Hearn plant instead of the construction of a new one.

It’s important to understand that the new plant would generate only 550 MW of power. Estimates indicate the City needs to find an additional 250 MW of power by 2008 and 500 MW by 2010. Thus, the Portlands plant will just meet Toronto’s needs for 4 years, at which time we will once again face an energy shortfall. The Portlands project represents just a 2.4% increase over the current 22,900 MW of capacity in Ontario. Moreover, given Ontario peak demand is 25,000 MW, the Portlands project will not prevent Ontario from needing to import power at peak times. OPG has a nice summary of its generating capacity on its website. Here’s an overview of their production sources:

OPG

I also seriously question whether OPG can actually build the Portlands Energy Centre in time to meet the expected 2008 shortfall. Two years is ridiculously short. I am skeptical as to whether the proper environmental assessments can be followed, given the time crunch. Certainly, opposition to the plan will make that even more challenging. Inevitably, the Province and the OPG will have to cast aside a democratic process in the name of expediency.

The real limitation to Toronto’s power supply is the capacity of the power lines coming into the city, and the overall shortage of capacity in Ontario. A plan that expands the incoming line capacity coupled with a substantial new generation plant in the Province would be a more sensible plan that would be effective in meeting the long-term needs of Toronto. While I have serious reservations about nuclear power, the 3 inactive generators at Pickering A have about three times the capacity (1545 MW) of the proposed Portlands plant, and already have the necessary lines in place.

The politics of power will certainly be in play. No community wants a power plant. Be that as it may, Pickering station has been in place for over 3 decades and given the lifespan of the existing reactors at Pickering, they will need to be replaced or upgraded within then next 20 years anyway.

Ontario needs to start thinking big and long-term. Increasing line capacity into Toronto will allow the Province, in the short term, to import power for fill the immediate short-term gap. Even if the Portlands project goes forward, it is doubtful it will be operational in time. Moreover, with a major re-investment in power province-wide, the new line capacity will be in place to meet Toronto’s needs. Long-term planning, not short-term stop-gap measures, should be the goal.


5 Comments/commentaires
Leave a comment/Enregistrer un commentaire

Seems to me that there is a solution to two of Toronto’s problems: trash and electricity. There is an empty generating station in Durham Region that can be fitted for a trash-to-energy generating station. It could handle all the garbage produce in Southern Ontario, not just the GTA.

Comment/commentaire by Mousky 02.17.06 @ 11:36 am

While modern incinerators can be almost emission-free. The problem is is that they’re not.

It also means that there has to be a constant flow of trash going to the incinerator. At a time when waste reduction needs to be encouraged and better waste management strategies need to be in place (green bins, blue bins and beyond) having an incinerator essentially circumvents these efforts and progress made in these areas.

Comment/commentaire by KRS 02.17.06 @ 1:00 pm

Don’t forget all the power coming from Bruce Nuclear!

Comment/commentaire by joel 02.20.06 @ 8:37 am

Hello there,
I’m a current 4th year student in the Environmental Studies program at York University. The poor long-term planning for this project is very disheartening and will be my focus for a report I am currently writing. While this article does have very useful statistics and represents a view of Toronto’s green citizens I was wondering if the author, Gregory Morrow, would mind e-mailing me where he got his sources from. If you could e-mail me that would be great, if not, just keeping blogging and spread the sustainable message.
PAUL

Comment/commentaire by Paul 02.27.06 @ 6:23 pm

I’d like to make a plug for A Realistic Energy Plan for Toronto as an alternative analysis of Toronto’s energy future. Morrow is correct that additional transmission into the city could address the supply issue, though perhaps not the robustness issue. In fact, my understanding is that these lines are in fact planned. But California’s experience suggests that we could quickly conserve more than this plant could produce. And since the real problem is not average demand, but rather peak demand, we could also address the problem through demand shifting. One way to do this would be to build a flow battery in the same Portlands location. Conservation and demand shifting easily cover the next few years. I agree that we should use this breathing space to address the long-term issues, but I’d rather address those through options safer and cheaper than nuclear.

Comment/commentaire by Charlie 03.22.06 @ 6:40 pm



Leave a comment/Laisser un commentaire
E-mail address never displayed/Votre adresse email ne sera jamais publiee. HTML: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

(required/requis)

(required/requis)



If your comment doesn't appear, it is because our automatic anti-spam software is blocking it. If so, just send us an email and we will post it for you.