North America's largest coal power plant to become 44-MW solar farm

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

GRA

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
14,018
Location
East side of San Francisco Bay
Via GCR: http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1102874_north-americas-largest-coal-power-plant-to-become-44-mw-solar-farm

. . . Located on the shores of Lake Erie, the Ontario Power Generation Nanticoke Generating Station was once North America's largest coal-fired power plant. It was once capable of producing almost 4,000 megawatts at full capacity, but the aging plant has been shuttered since 2013. Now the site is to be re-purposed for a 44-MW solar farm, as part of a larger effort to replace coal with renewable sources, according to Cleantech Canada. . . .
Elsewhere in the article it's mentioned that this array is one of 16 Ontario PV projects which will have a combined capacity of 454.9 MW. What I'd like to know is, if they're replacing almost 4 GW of baseload capacity with (eventually) less than 500 MW of variable, intermittent capacity, what's taking up the slack? They shut down the coal plant in 2013, so they must be getting power from somewhere in the interim.
 
I'm surprised Canada is doing solar. I would think the panels would produce much better further south. Thus, allocating solar panel production that far north would be rather inefficient in terms of increasing worldwide renewable energy. I would think Canada should allocate its renewable energy funding to hydro or wind.

I guess feel good politics wins over rational resource allocation.
 
You must be kidding and/or naive. I believe that Germany leads the world in both installed capacity and installed capacity per capita, and it is at essentially the same latitude, or even more borreal* than Canada. If you angle panels appropriately, they can still receive full normal/near-perpendicular insolation. Yes, they'll cast a bigger shadow, which handicaps large horizontal layouts, but that's not a problem in Canada, where there is plenty of land. And if you don't have the land, vertical layouts might become attractive. Solar makes sense anywhere that there is cheap land or "space", and even better if region is relatively near population centers.

"Go Canada..."


* :) Germans, on some sort of weighted average, probably live well north of most of Canadians


DarthPuppy said:
I'm surprised Canada is doing solar. I would think the panels would produce much better further south. Thus, allocating solar panel production that far north would be rather inefficient in terms of increasing worldwide renewable energy. I would think Canada should allocate its renewable energy funding to hydro or wind.

I guess feel good politics wins over rational resource allocation.
 
I was going to say that location is about as far south as you can get in Canada, further south than we are in Green Bay, WI and we have solar :) They about the same latitude as Detroit. Yes the further south you go the faster the payback and more daily production, but solar works everywhere the sun shines. I remember a Youtube vid of a solar PV tracker setup in northern Alaska tracking the never setting sun in summer generating power 24x7, pretty neat.
 
GRA said:
What I'd like to know is, if they're replacing almost 4 GW of baseload capacity with (eventually) less than 500 MW of variable, intermittent capacity, what's taking up the slack?
It's a good question. the most likely answer is that there was spare capacity in the system that was lost. But I don't get the impression that North America is on the edge yet with spare electricity capacity. OTOH, it appears the UK will have serious problems if they don't manage to curtail some upcoming plant shutdowns:

deratedcapacity.png


I also wonder how much PV has been installed on people's roofs in Canada in the recent past. They have had decent subsidies in place. Of course home PV does not provide electricity for the grid at night (not yet, at least).
 
GRA said:
Via GCR: http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1102874_north-americas-largest-coal-power-plant-to-become-44-mw-solar-farm

. . . Located on the shores of Lake Erie, the Ontario Power Generation Nanticoke Generating Station was once North America's largest coal-fired power plant. It was once capable of producing almost 4,000 megawatts at full capacity, but the aging plant has been shuttered since 2013. Now the site is to be re-purposed for a 44-MW solar farm, as part of a larger effort to replace coal with renewable sources, according to Cleantech Canada. . . .
Elsewhere in the article it's mentioned that this array is one of 16 Ontario PV projects which will have a combined capacity of 454.9 MW. What I'd like to know is, if they're replacing almost 4 GW of baseload capacity with (eventually) less than 500 MW of variable, intermittent capacity, what's taking up the slack? They shut down the coal plant in 2013, so they must be getting power from somewhere in the interim.

Hydro Quebec?
 
mbender said:
You must be kidding and/or naive. I believe that Germany leads the world in both installed capacity and installed capacity per capita, and it is at essentially the same latitude, or even more borreal* than Canada. If you angle panels appropriately, they can still receive full normal/near-perpendicular insolation. Yes, they'll cast a bigger shadow, which handicaps large horizontal layouts, but that's not a problem in Canada, where there is plenty of land. And if you don't have the land, vertical layouts might become attractive. Solar makes sense anywhere that there is cheap land or "space", and even better if region is relatively near population centers.

"Go Canada..."


* :) Germans, on some sort of weighted average, probably live well north of most of Canadians
I couldn't disagree more. That Germany may lead the world on a per capita basis just shows that the German government isn't using their money very effectively. They've got excellent wind potential, poor solar potential except in the south, and that's nothing to write home about. Unfortunately, I've been unable to find a map online that uses the same figures as the two maps below, but converting some of the numbers they're poor to marginal. For Germany, subsidizing solar instead of wind makes zero sense, especially when they're closing nukes and boosting coal-fired electricity to compensate. If anyone's interested, here's an interactive map of Canada's solar potential: http://tinyurl.com/jaf3zln

Except out on the southern part of the western plains (Alberta/Saskatchewan/Manitoba), I very much doubt it's viable without major subsidies, even with current PV prices. For comparison here's a U.S. map: http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/1961-1990/redbook/atlas/

Set both up to show annual kWh/m^2/day averages, south facing fixed panels with latitude tilt. [Edit] Well, they both did - now the Canadian one refuses to show average annual kWh/m^2/day, and only annual kWh.

[Edit] Sorry about the duplicated links. I've fixed it. Urk! I see this was post #5000, after about 4.5 years. I'm clearly still spending way too much online time on my hobbies!
 
GRA said:
For Germany, subsidizing solar instead of wind makes zero sense, especially when they're closing nukes and boosting coal-fired electricity to compensate.
Germany subsidizes both. While solar may be expensive in Germany, I'm not convinced that wind is cheaper. Certainly their off-shore wind is WAY more expensive than PV solar given that the maintenance costs are about 100X the installation costs. Maintenance costs for PV are nowhere near that level. That leaves terrestrial wind. Even ignoring the environmental impacts, I have to wonder if they really come out cheaper in the long run. I've read the claims that they are, but the maintenance costs are quite significant.

On top of all of that, putting a wind generator on every square kilometer in Germany will NEVER happen, so if Germany wants to be 80%+ renewable, they will need to develop their solar resources as well.
 
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
For Germany, subsidizing solar instead of wind makes zero sense, especially when they're closing nukes and boosting coal-fired electricity to compensate.
Germany subsidizes both. While solar may be expensive in Germany, I'm not convinced that wind is cheaper. Certainly their off-shore wind is WAY more expensive than PV solar given that the maintenance costs are about 100X the installation costs. Maintenance costs for PV are nowhere near that level. That leaves terrestrial wind. Even ignoring the environmental impacts, I have to wonder if they really come out cheaper in the long run. I've read the claims that they are, but the maintenance costs are quite significant.

On top of all of that, putting a wind generator on every square kilometer in Germany will NEVER happen, so if Germany wants to be 80%+ renewable, they will need to develop their solar resources as well.
They used to subsidize both, but fortunately PV subsidies have been cut back, at least for home owners (and should be for companies too, IMO). I agree that the installation and maintenance costs of offshore wind are higher than onshore, but the wind resource is better too. How it works out altogether, I don't have good current data for. AOTBE onshore is currently preferable, but as is the case here, suffers from Nimbyism to a much greater extent than offshore (provided the latter is out of sight from land).
 
mbender said:
You must be kidding and/or naive.

No, rather you seem to be ill-informed about efficiency or poor on reading skills.

At no point did I say it couldn't be done or wouldn't be economically viable there. My point was clearly stated as one regarding global deployment efficiency. If we have the capacity to produce and deploy x number of solar panels in a year, it would be more efficient for global renewable energy deployment to put those where they will produce more power, subject to that production being close enough to power needs such as population centers. Thus, global efficiency would suggest solar be allocated elsewhere. That is not a difficult concept, nor a joke.

The impact of geographic location on solar panel output is well studied and documented.

And studies showing that during the summer with day-round sunlight they can produce well ignores the flip side of the year where they produce very little. Also stating that other northern locations make the same mistake does not mean that is a good plan.

I concur that Canada does many things well. And I fully support their desire to be good world citizens and be green in their power production. And I 'Go Canada' as I particularly like visiting there for a number of good reasons. I am in no way being anti-Canada.

My comment was about efficiency in their allocation, which consumes solar resources which could have gone to better locations.

Now, if I somehow misunderstood what I've read and solar panels work better farther north than they do south, then I stand corrected. If I am correct on that point, then I'm correct regarding the resource allocation efficiency aspect, at least until such time as we are no longer resource constrained regarding solar panels and we can cheaply deploy them everywhere we desire power. I hope we get there sooner than later. Production is growing and costs are dropping, but we have a long ways to go yet.

Another possible argument in favor of Canada doing solar vs. the other green options would be to provide information indicating that even that far north, solar is so much more efficient than other options and there is some political hostility or other barrier to installing those resources further south. That would be an appropriate response if that is the case.
 
Thank you GRA and RegGuheert for addressing the aspects of the relative efficiency/economics of wind, hydro and solar options for the different areas. That is something I can't speak to as I've only looked closely at solar as I can't realistically install my own hydro or wind solution under So. Cal's regulatory scheme. :cry: I would love to have installed wind in addition to my solar panels.

So if solar is more economical than other options, even that far north, I can understand Canada's choices. I'm just skeptical if that is optimal for global green objectives, hence my questioning the efficiency. Over the last decade, solar production has grown substantially and costs have come down, because of the amount of investment made and the political willingness to support deployment and overcome barriers. If the same investment and political will was applied to wind and hydro and other green options, I would think those would be more competitive too. So I'm inclined to think that from a global perspective, the northern locations would be thinking more strategically if they allocated toward those other options and left precious solar resources for use by more southern locales.
 
DarthPuppy said:
The impact of geographic location on solar panel output is well studied and documented.

And studies showing that during the summer with day-round sunlight they can produce well ignores the flip side of the year where they produce very little.
Anyone who reads this forum knows that I am a very big proponent of photovoltaics. That said, I will say the problems of effectively applying photovoltaics gets doubly harder as you move toward the poles: wintertime PV production drops while wintertime loads increase. Even at my location near Washington, DC, this makes running a typical home from solar power a significant challenge. Here are two examples:

Photovoltaics with net metering on my own home (39 degrees North latitude): Electricity production in December and January is approximately 1/2 that of June and July. But electricity consumption in January and February is often 3X what I use in June and July due to the operation of a heat pump space heater. With the magic of net metering, I am able to size my photovoltaic system at 2X the summertime load in order to meet the total load of over 18 MWh/year. With that arrangement, I bank over 3 MWh during the summer months to be consumed during the wintertime. Since storage of that much electricity is not practical with current battery technology, I would need to triple the size if the PV array in order to operate the heat pump in the wintertime in an off-grid condition. My roof MAY be able to accommodate this much PV with current technology, but that would represent a significant waste, IMO.

An entirely off-grid home nearby (same 39 degrees North latitude): This home is about the same size as mine and was designed from the ground up to be very thermally energy efficient and to store significant amounts of thermal energy in the concrete and stone slab in the basement (with R40 insulation below the slab). This home has both a PV array for electricity and a solar thermal array for heating both water and the basement slab. The photovoltaic array is about 1/3 the size of the array on my home and produces about 1/10 as much electricity as my system due to being battery-backed rather than grid-tied. The thermal array is 2/3 the area of the PV array, but it is 4X to 5X as efficient. Both arrays are mounted at steep angles to optimize wintertime production (and reduce summertime production). Both the electrical and the thermal systems are backed up with fossil-fuel-based systems. Home comfort is maintained in wintertime using a Swedish fireplace in the center of the home. Without it, temperatures get down to about 45 degree Fahrenheit in the worst weather conditions (with all systems functioning properly).

As you move toward the poles, both of these homes would require both larger systems AND better insulation. Annual solar production would drop (even though summertime production may increase). As you approach the Arctic Circle, the ability to provide either electricity OR heat from the sun in wintertime would approach zero. This is why countries such as Germany are pursuing using hydrogen for long-term storage of energy. Unfortunately, hydrogen storage increases the amount of electricity needed by 2X or 3X due to the significant losses. OTOH, the *theoretical* efficiency of electrolysis is 120%, meaning that in the future you may be able to consume heat during electrolysis in summertime. Likewise the theoretical efficiency of recombining hydrogen and oxygen is only 83%, meaning you WILL get heat from the fuel cell. Since you need heat in the wintertime, it can be a beneficial arrangement if the heat can be used. But we are not very close to these theoretical efficiencies today, so you get waste heat in both reactions.
DarthPuppy said:
If I am correct on that point, then I'm correct regarding the resource allocation efficiency aspect, at least until such time as we are no longer resource constrained regarding solar panels and we can cheaply deploy them everywhere we desire power. I hope we get there sooner than later. Production is growing and costs are dropping, but we have a long ways to go yet.
Agreed. But I am hopeful that some day most of our needs can be met with solar power that is either used directly or stored thermally, in batteries or in something such as hydrogen. Today, I am in favor of preferring photovoltaics where they can be reasonably applied, even in places such as Canada and Germany, since they have long life and very low maintenance and environmental impact when compared with wind. This is particularly true when PV is placed on rooftops. Unfortunately, when utilities get involved, PV starts to have significant land-use impacts.

Germany is currently doing significant damage to their environment by leveling forests and building wind generators. Fortunately there is significant opposition rising from the citizens there to this type of destruction. My preference would be to use a much more measured approach which would allow the preservation of our environment while solar and other technologies mature. I am intrigued by kite-based wind generators since they do not have the land impact of either wind turbines or utility-scale photovoltaics.
 
RegGuheert said:
<snippagio>
As you move toward the poles, both of these homes would require both larger systems AND better insulation. Annual solar production would drop (even though summertime production may increase). As you approach the Arctic Circle, the ability to provide either electricity OR heat from the sun in wintertime would approach zero.
In general, for off-grid towards either pole you've got to go with a hybrid system, PV/wind, maybe hydro, plus often generator backup. I have a vague memory of spec'ing an off-grid home in Alaska once, and it had to be PV/wind. Hydro wasn't a very good option, as they had plenty of sun in the summer, and when they didn't the river was frozen. Given the choice between PV and hydro I'd always opt for PV, unless the electricity needs were very large, which was rare in the typical off-grid home. Closer to the equator, you've usually got more options. OTOH, there was this one site I spec'd which had terrible PV/wind options but great hydro potential - as described to me over the phone, if was at 5,000 feet in a rain forest on the side of a Mexican volcano, but had a stream with decent flow and incredible head, so hydro was the el cheapo (and really the only) choice.

RegGuheert said:
<snip>
I am intrigued by kite-based wind generators since they do not have the land impact of either wind turbines or utility-scale photovoltaics.
Kite- or balloon-based wind turbine proposals seem to come around about every 10-15 years. The theory is wonderful, but the practical/safety concerns have always made it a non-starter in the past. Maybe the development of software and control systems for autonomous vehicles plus wireless power transmission over several thousand foot distances will lower the price/weight of same to the point that kite-based systems won't require the large land safety clearances under and around them that they currently require (after all, if the wind stops or their tether/power transmission cables break you have to make sure they return to earth gently, without falling on people or their homes/businesses). You also need to make sure that the tethers don't get tangled.

Even dropping a typical short extension cord from a height of several hundred to several thousand feet could injure or maybe even kill someone it hit; dropping part of a much larger and heavier transmission/tether on someone from the same height would probably remove all doubt as to fatality. And if you're talking about putting the generator aloft instead of on the ground, you might as well drop an inert bomb on someone. Tethered aerostats used to hoist radars aloft occasionally break free, and kite or balloon-based turbines would be multiplying the numbers aloft by many times:
NORAD: Runaway military blimp secured in Pennsylvania
http://www.wbaltv.com/news/jlens-blimp-breaks-free-of-tether-in-aberdeen/36097348

. . .Officials said the break occurred around 12:20 p.m. at Aberdeen Proving Ground. NORAD officials told WBAL-TV 11 News reporter Kim Dacey around 3:15 p.m. that the blimp was secured in an unpopulated area of Moreland Township, Pennsylvania, about 150 miles from Aberdeen. . . .

Authorities in the Bloomsburg area reported the tether cable from the blimp took down power lines. Power outages were reported in the area, and Bloomsburg University canceled classes as a result of power outages on the campus.
Now just imagine the risk factor of hundreds or thousands of tethered aloft turbines instead of a couple dozen. I've got to wonder how many people were killed or injured by falling barrage balloon tethers in WW2, even though those were typically only sent aloft when an air raid warning was issued (in civilian-populated areas; military areas might have them up a lot more), and people would be spending time when the balloons were aloft in bomb shelters. I do see that Title 32 CFR 536:26 allows for claims during war by foreign civilians (at least in foreign countries) suffering damage to property/injury or death due to the operation of barrage balloons among other things: https://books.google.com/books?id=3RazAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA134&lpg=PA134&dq=barrage+balloon+deaths+injuries&source=bl&ots=YMxHF0FX8i&sig=FF2p6hBO8kqliIavEVA2x9w-Uvs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiXt7SP183LAhVO32MKHbEiCRoQ6AEIMTAD#v=onepage&q=barrage%20balloon%20deaths%20injuries&f=false

See page 134, near the bottom of the left column.
 
GRA said:
Maybe the development of software and control systems for autonomous vehicles plus wireless power transmission over several thousand foot distances will lower the price/weight of same to the point that kite-based systems won't require the large land safety clearances under and around them that they currently require (after all, if the wind stops or their tether/power transmission cables break you have to make sure they return to earth gently, without falling on people or their homes/businesses).
All generation is done on the ground. The kite pulls cables out and that turns a generator. Once the cable is all pulled out, the kite is furled and pulled in and then the cycle repeats itself. The kite and its support cables are all that fly.

Here is a link to a system which I have previously read more extensively about. I think you will find more information there.
 
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
Maybe the development of software and control systems for autonomous vehicles plus wireless power transmission over several thousand foot distances will lower the price/weight of same to the point that kite-based systems won't require the large land safety clearances under and around them that they currently require (after all, if the wind stops or their tether/power transmission cables break you have to make sure they return to earth gently, without falling on people or their homes/businesses).
All generation is done on the ground. The kite pulls cables out and that turns a generator. Once the cable is all pulled out, the kite is furled and pulled in and then the cycle repeats itself. The kite and its support cables are all that fly.

Here is a link to a system which I have previously read more extensively about. I think you will find more information there.
Thanks, I'll check it out. Ground-based generators do reduce the weight up high, and I've always favored them for that reason. OTOH, frequent reeling in and out (plus the mechanisms to frequently furl/unfurl) also adds to costs and maintenance, and ISTM is likely to increase the likelihood of tether failures. I'd love to see somebody make it work commercially.
 
Back
Top