(1)  Ontario should stop…

(1)  Ontario should stop providing excessive support to wind and solar electricity generators.  We should let the existing facility continue to operate but they should compete with other electricity sources on a level playing field.

(2)  Ontario should increase reliance on hydro and nuclear electricity.

(2a)  As there are not many suitable sites left in Ontario to develop new hydroelectric power, importing as much hydro electricity as possible from Quebec or from other nearby provinces is a sensible strategy.  In order to minimize line loss, consider high voltage DC transmission lines. (2b)  Refurbish or upgrade capacity of existing nuclear power plants and also start planning to build new power reactors.

(3)  There is a widespread belief that nuclear is only for base-load electricity and other power sources are needed to meet the peak demand.  This is misguided.  A more sensible strategy is to build up the nuclear fleet to meet peak demand, and find ways to use excess power during off peak periods.

(4)  CANDU reactors have served Ontario well for last 60 years.  However, they are too big and the capital cost of building them is very high.  A number of Canadian companies are in the process of designing smaller reactors.  Ontario should take part in this R&D by forming private-public joint ventures.

A word of caution: internationally, Canada is committed since year 2000 to develop a new reactor design known as super-critical-water reactor.  SCW Reactor is technically very challenging and in my opinion very likely to fail.  Even if such a reactor is successfully built, it will encounter serious material corrosion problems in operation.  Ontario should stay away from SCW Reactors.

(5)  Building up nuclear generating capacity to meet peak demand will take at least a few decades. Therefore, how we shall use the off-peak excess electricity will depend on which technology has matured for widespread deployment by then.

Below I describe several scenarios, starting with the one for which all required technologies already exist today.

Scenario 1:  Convert excess electricity to hydrogen via electrolysis, and sell the hydrogen gas to natural gas providers.  This will not make economic sense if the market price of natural gas is low and no penalty for emitting CO2 when the gas is burned.  However, under a cap-and-trade system, natural gas providers can earn emission credits by distributing hydrogen instead of natural gas. Note that they do not need to build new pipelines: the existing network of pipelines can carry hydrogen and natural gas as a mixture to the end users.  Hence, this strategy is very easy to implement, the only requirement being the cost to CO2 emission be high enough to offset the cost of electrolysis.  (Oxygen gas, which is a by-product, can also be marketed but it will be an icing on the cake).

Scenario 2:  If the battery technology has developed to the extent that plug-in electric vehicles are reality, excess electricity, mostly at night, can be used to charge the cars.  Today’s lithium batteries are impressive but they remain expensive, limited in range (i.e. the distance a battery powered car can travel on one charge is much less than what we are used to with today’s cars), and have a rather short lifetime.  I give this scenario a low chance of success because we need a breakthrough in battery technology.

Scenario 3:  Hydrogen produced by electrolysis can be used as transportation fuel, replacing hydrocarbon fuels (gasoline and diesel).  Here also we need a breakthrough, either in onboard storage so that enough hydrogen can be carried to give a range comparable to a gasoline car, or in fuel-cell technology that will give higher mileage from less amount of fuel.  I know a lot of research being carried out on hydrogen storage and to a lesser extent on fuel cells.  They are both technically challenging, and I give this scenario equally low chance of success as for scenario 2.

Scenario 4:  Hydrogen from electrolysis can be further converted to ammonia, which can be liquefied and used as a carbon-free transportation fuel.  This scenario, like scenario 1, can be implemented right away since all required technologies exist today.  Indeed, liquid ammonia was used as fuel in Europe to run buses during the WWII.

Regardless of which scenario plays out in the future, it is clear that we need CO2-free primary energy source.  For that, nuclear and hydro (when possible) are the best.  Wind and solar are CO2-free; however, they are far more expensive.  Also, note that the goal of this proposal is to completely eliminate CO2 emissions by having enough excess electricity for plug-in vehicles, or for synthesising carbon-free fuels.  We need copious amount of electricity and the only way to achieve this is by nuclear.

[Original Comment ID: 206973]