Pathways To Decarbonization…

Pathways To Decarbonization

Call for Comments

The Ontario government appears determined to pave the pathway to considerably more wind and solar electricity generation, to be absorbed by 2500 MWs of battery arrays; locations as yet unknown. The Pathways study tells us battery farms will be fed by excess baseload power from hydro and nuclear plants. This may be true, but it is also true that the current surplus baseload produced by nuclear and hydro energy will soon be overtaken by growing demand, if IESO forecasts remain accurate. This being the case, where could more non-emitting power come from - wind, and solar, in the main, with some biofuels, like wood pellet burning?

The subject of transmission lines occupies a special place and emphasis in the ministry's questions, as does cost, and so it should. Like the US, to make the renewable game plan work, considerable, repeat, considerable numbers of transmission routes need to be designed, approved, and thousands of kilometres of wire and hundreds of massive towers need to be constructed. And before that can happen regulatory processes need to move at lightning speed in order to meet the federal government's 2035 carbon dioxide free electricity grid. (One should pause to contemplate these massive costs, the resources - human, technology, etc.)

The Pathways study indicates that the Ontario grid could possibly be carbon-free by 2035, suitably accompanied by a hockey sock full of caveats; all with huge costs of their own. A carbon-free 2035 grid is a very doubtful conclusion as the caveats are the limiting factors, and cannot be easily brushed aside, as so many activists demand. The fear and claims generated by climate change activists have at least a 50 year history, and none of the end of earth declarations by celebrities, UN and some scientists has come to pass. Rational thinking and discussion are thrust aside, and need to return.

Gluing oneself to the road or calling for an immediate end to fossil fuels will not change the course of civilization. Energy of all natures comes from someplace. To make it serve the world, humans must transform it to their purposes, but doing so cannot bankrupt countries and their citizens. Preventing real pollution in the atmosphere is positive, was needed and occurred over the period. But carbon dioxide is not a pollutant no matter the number of times government officials, politicians and activists say so. Calling carbon dioxide a pollutant is absurd as all living beings and plants use and expel it during their lives.

What largely drives the need for an extraordinary build-out of transmission lines is that wind and solar power is normally generated some distance from consumption points. On one hand, Ontarians are told at every turn that solar and wind are cheaper than any other source. However, add in the costs of connection, transmission and the costs of other more reliable generators on standby to pick up the load when wind and solar do not co-operate to meet demand, and the equation flips to expensive in a hurry. A real-life illustration of transmission issues is the recently approved set of lines from Wyoming wind farms stretching to California. The proposed route took 18 years for approval, will cost hundreds of millions and will take 5 years to construct.

On the other hand, wind at times must be shuttered when demand does not match supply, and depending on the contract, the wind turbine owners are compensated for the lost generation. Wind and solar are not directly dispatchable from their source to satisfy a need, as every other generator can do. The only way to make renewable power dispatchable is by storing it at expensive battery farms to be dispatched at high priced peak demand times, or converting it to hydrogen or ammonia - more expense.

Seemingly, at every turn, renewables generate the most expensive power when all is considered. Activists proclaim renewable power is cheap, except that when all things are properly considered and accounted for, it is not. Ontario's government and political leadership will be doing their citizens a great disservice if they attempt to portray renewables (wind and solar) as the true way ahead. More hydro could make sense if the costs are honestly calculated along with the territorial, Indigenous and water reservoir areas and transmission issues that would need special attention.

In a previous comment the matter of reliability on the US and Ontario grid was discussed in light of US regulators, and the inter-connection between our province and the numerous independent systems operators (ISO's) in the US. A couple of major issues seem to be on the horizon that could affect our grid and its reliability.

The first is passage of New York state legislation aiming to convert its grid to carbon-free renewables as they shut down emitting generators seemingly without concern for the grid's reliability.

The second is in testimony before Senator Manchin's very influential Committee on Energy & Natural Resources United States Senate, on May 4, 2023 by all FERC commissioners, an independent panel that regulates gas and electricity US grids, expressed grave concerns for the US grid's reliability. As described below, all commissioners are concerned with grid reliability, with the majority seeing the massive, and a soon to be larger influx of solar and wind renewables, heavily subsidized by the US Inflation Recovery Act, as the cause of increasing grid unreliability.

Here is a sampling of their testimony,

"We face unprecedented challenges to the reliability of our nation’s electric system," said FERC Acting Chairman Willie Phillips;

"There is a looming reliability crisis in our electricity markets," said FERC Commissioner James Danly; and,

"The United States is heading for a very catastrophic situation in terms of reliability," FERC Commissioner Mark Christie said.

Commissioner Christie said the main problem is that power plants are being retired at a faster pace than they’re being replaced, pointing to estimates from the PJM Interconnection. In PJM’s February 24, 2023 report, PJM says 40 GW is at risk of retiring by 2030, but only 15.1 GW to 30 GW of accredited capacity will come online to replace it. PJM ISO covers the following states: Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia.

Commissioner Danly said the culprit is subsidized renewable energy, which undermines the economics of coal-fired and natural gas-fired power plants in organized markets pointing out that the singular problem is the "... large quantities of intermittent renewable resources being forced onto the electric system."

Danly goes on to say, " Most of these market-distorting forces originate with subsidies—both state and federal—and from public policies that are otherwise designed to
promote the deployment of non-dispatchable wind and solar assets or to drive fossil-fuel generators out of business as quickly as possible. The subsidies available to renewable generators are so lucrative that, when participating in procurement auctions, they are able to offer at a price of zero instead of their actual cost. The
market signal thereby created is that these new resources can be built for free, and thus the cost of power is also free. This, of course, is untrue, and the inevitable consequence is market-wide price suppression. The price suppression deprives other market participants of much needed revenue, leading to the premature retirement of the dispatchable generators which have to offer into the market at their true costs in order to remain viable."

Of course, Ontario market circumstances may vary somewhat from what Commissioner Danly describes of the US grid state, but he is bang on when he speaks about price distortion caused by subsidies which can drive premature retirement of dispatchable generators in the promotion of solar and wind, or simply force fossil-fuel generators out of business. The old adage, " Putting the cart before the horse." paints a very accurate picture of the US generation and transmission system. Ontario needs to learn the lessons of the American grid system, that is, not creating policy and non-competitive environments situations to discourage and displace generation of power by the currently out of favour fossil fuels - natural gas, without any viable, reliable and consistent replacement.

Ontario and the federal government are emulating the US model, and we Ontarians will severely regret moving so fast with decarbonization of the grid. We will destabilize the grid to such an extent to emulate the brown-outs and blackouts similar to those in Texas experienced during a recent winter storm. In fact the Texas grid is preparing itself for brown-outs this summer, a state that brags about having the largest capacity of wind and solar power generation. And today the state electricity regulators are scrambling to contract gas-fired generation to prevent a catastrophic grid collapse. Climate is not the calamity. The siren call of overly subsidized wind and solar capacity cannot meet demand when called upon - the un-dispatchability and unreliability of renewable power destabilizes the entire Texas grid.

This is a major lesson to be learned unfolding before our eyes. Ontario cannot allow itself to fall into a known trap. The consequences are immense

Ontario has a better opportunity with SMRs than wind and solar. Nuclear power is engrained and proven in this province, plus we have the skilled workers and engineers to expand SMR deployment and make it work.

As neighbours with interconnected grids, what happens to Ontario, if and when New York state experiences black-outs, as they shut down their fossil-fuel plants long before sufficient reliable alternatives are in place and proven? NYISO not only operates on our borders as does PJM, but the two ISOs abutt as neighbours, and that can bring its own issues as shown below.

One of the major issues facing the US grid is that as coal plants, which today produce 60% of US electricity, shutter due to unprofitable situations, caused by highly subsidized wind and solar power, ISOs look to import power from their neighbours' coal generators. That has worked for a long time. The skill of the grid operators can be credited for making this work, but time and the EPA is not on the side of grid reliability, as dispatchable power from neighbouring ISOs disappears as coal plants shut down whether by EPA regulation or unprofitability. Recent EPA emission rulings will exacerbate reliability forcing coal generators to close. Given New York's current course to a fully solar and wind grid, major reliability issues there could cause Ontario real problems.

Are we prepared, secure and reliable? Given FERC commissioner's recent testimony, jeopardy is not too strong a term for where we are headed.

If we turn off the natural gas plants in 2035, we will be in trouble.

Emulating the US system where its own regulators are flashing the hazard lights, does not seem to be Ontario's Pathway.

Carbon and climate are not the crises we would be made to believe, grid reliability is the existential crisis if we get ahead of ourselves, trying to solve a minor issue while creating a massive blow to our society's ability to survive, operate and prosper. .