By Samuel Buckstein

Nuclear power is experiencing a resurgence worldwide and Ontario is no exception. The province has a long history with this awesome and terrifying energy technology, and it is once again turning to nuclear power in response to concerns over national sovereignty, economic growth, electrification and decarbonization.

The persistent shortcomings of nuclear power

Finding pathways out of Ontario’s hydro and climate mess

Looking back over Ontario’s troubled history with nuclear energy, it is concerning to see the Ford government stumbling back to the bar for another round of nuclear cool-aid. Yet Ontario’s plan shows little evidence of having done its homework. Contrary to the government’s claims, it is fiscally irresponsible, incapable of delivering the energy the province needs in the time required, and compromises Ontario’s energy security.

When it should be investing in much cheaper and more easily deployed renewables, the province is recklessly doubling down on nuclear despite the evidence against it.

A legacy mired in debt

To understand Ontario’s nuclear trajectory, it is helpful to reflect on its origins. When civilian nuclear power was commercialized after the Second World War, its advocates promised it would be “too cheap to meter.” Buoyed by encouragement and financing from both provincial and federal governments, Ontario Hydro duly invested in a fleet of 20 CANDU reactors at three nuclear power stations over the course of 30 years.

By the turn of the millennium, Ontario Hydro’s nuclear obsession had saddled it with $38.1 billion in debt — $20.9 billion of it stranded (unsupported by assets). This burden was so immense that it toppled the once proud flagship Crown corporation. Ontarians continue to pay for this nuclear hangover today. As of March 2023, ratepayers were still on the hook for $13.8 billion.

Even as late as 1989, with Ontario Hydro already buckling under its crushing debt, the utility was forecasting the need for 10 to 15 new reactors by 2014. Reality proved otherwise, with peak electricity demand in 2014 lower than it had been 25 years earlier.

After a generation of staggering cost overruns and catastrophic international incidents at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, nuclear power fell out of favour in much of the developed world. Cheaper, more flexible and faster-to-deploy alternatives took its place, first gas and then renewables.

Today, China is the only country in the world that can bring three to four new reactors online every year while steadily improving cost efficiency and construction timelines. China is also installing nearly 100 times more renewable capacity annually, accounting for more than half the world’s newly added generation.

Lessons from the U.K. and Ukraine

However, Ontario should learn from the United Kingdom, not authoritarian China. The experience of Hinkley Point C, the first new nuclear power plant to be built in the U.K. in more than 20 years, should be a cautionary tale.

At least five years behind schedule and two times over budget, Hinkley Point C will likely be the most expensive nuclear power plant yet. The electricity generated by this colossal waste of rate-payer dollars will cost between two to four times more than renewable energy, which can be brought online in half the time. This is what the provincial government has in store for Ontario.

The scale of Ontario’s plan is immense. In addition to the CANDU refurbishments at Darlington and Bruce, Ontario has announced the refurbishment of Pickering B, one of the oldest and most urban nuclear power stations in the world.

Canada needs to accelerate its transition to renewable energy

Focus on renewables, not nuclear, to fuel Canada’s electric needs

Sovereignty concerns

Ontario has also contracted with GE Vernova Hitachi to build up to four small modular reactors (SMRs) at the Darlington site. It is unclear why the government has committed to building four SMRs before even the first is constructed. The greater concern with this arrangement is GE Vernova Hitachi is a U.S.-controlled company and the fuel supply chain is in the U.S. and France, not Canada.

To understand how fragile such a dependency can become, consider the situation facing Ukraine and its Soviet-built RMBK reactors. After Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea and Donbas in 2014, Ukraine found itself dependent on its aggressor to fuel the reactors. At the time, nuclear power generated approximately half of Ukraine’s pre-war electricity, similar to the proportion of Ontario’s reliance on nuclear energy. Ukrainians are now facing severe energy insecurity, with freezing temperatures and blackouts.

As if this were not concerning enough, Ontarians are subsidizing the first commercial demonstration of an unproven foreign nuclear technology while the government continues to naively claim Ontario will remain the industrial base from which the U.S.-controlled company will scale. Given the trade policies of the current U.S. government, not least of all its efforts to gut Ontario’s auto sector, it is hard not to see this belief as a fool’s hope.

No price tag and no certainty it will pay

Despite these red flags, Ontario’s nuclear ambitions do not stop there. The government is also considering building two new large nuclear power stations at the Bruce site and at a new location near Port Hope. This despite the fact that, like the U.K., the domestic nuclear supply chain has all but vanished. This is precisely the kind of multi-billion-dollar, multi-decade infrastructure lock-in that bankrupted Ontario Hydro.

The government has been silent on how much this plan will cost. No one can predict whether demand will materialize to justify this massive supply expansion, or what electricity prices will be when these reactors finally come online. Committing to decades of investment in such an uncertain environment is sheer folly.

To top it all off, nuclear power is not even operationally flexible. Generation cannot be adjusted rapidly enough to follow demand, and the reactors can only be quickly turned off, but not back on again (it took Ontario more than a day to restore power after the 2003 Great Northeastern Blackout due to neutron poisoning in the reactors).

Renewable options

It does not have to be this way. Much has changed since the last wave of nuclear infatuation. Renewables are now the cheapest source of energy on a levelized basis. While renewables may be intermittent, they are reasonably predictable, and for the first time since the inception of the electricity industry, generation no longer needs to coincide perfectly with consumption. Rapidly falling battery costs have made energy storage a commercially viable reality.

It is true that China currently dominates the supply chains for solar, wind and batteries, but once the equipment is installed it is virtually impervious to foreign interference. Unlike the supply of nuclear fuel, the sun shines everywhere.

Ontario and Canada should be collaborating with other democratic allies to reduce dependence on Chinese suppliers. In the meantime, the fact remains that unsubsidized renewables and batteries outperform nuclear and gas on cost and deployment time. Sadly, instead of embracing this more affordable and distributed future, the provincial government remains stuck in an inflexible and fiscally reckless past.

Nuclear power can provide energy security, but only if it is supported and fuelled by a domestic supply chain, like the original CANDUs. Its unmatched energy density makes sense where land is scarce, but that is hardly the case in Ontario. It may even be a defensible form of industrial policy if you believe in that kind of state interventionism. But above all else, nuclear power is neither nimble nor affordable (outside China) and it’s about time the Ontario government stopped posturing otherwise.

More Policy Options articles on nuclear power:

• Ontario’s nuclear option is the wrong path to meet green energy targets
• Canada’s newest nuclear industry dream is a potential nightmare

The post Ontario’s nuclear push risks another costly policy failure appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

By The Energy Mix staff

The Oneida Energy Storage, Canada’s biggest battery energy storage system, went online ahead of schedule and under budget last week, on a patch of industrial land just a few kilometres from the Six Nations of the Grand River in Ontario.

The 250-megawatt/1,000 megawatt-hour project in Haldimand County is co-owned by the Six Nations of the Grand River Development Corporation (SNGRDC), Northland Power, NRStor Inc., Aecon Concessions, and the Mississaugas of the Credit Business Corporation, all operating through the Oneida Energy Storage Limited Partnership (Oneida LP). It was originally priced at $800 million in 2023, but ultimately came in at $700 million, Northland Power said.

“With 278 lithium-ion battery units now officially drawing and storing power from Ontario’s electricity grid, Oneida LP will receive fixed capacity payments through a 20-year capacity services contract with Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) and generate revenue from energy sold into the Ontario electricity grid, as well as from providing ancillary services to the system,” SNGRDC said May 7.

“Originally developed under a 50/50 partnership between SNGRDC and NRStor Inc., the Oneida Energy Storage facility serves as a model for meaningful partnerships, prioritizing Indigenous involvement in the development of clean energy in Canada,” the development corporation added. The project more than doubles Ontario’s energy storage capacity from 225 to 475 MW, will eliminate 1.2 to 4.1 megatonnes of climate pollution over its operating life, “and will support more efficient operation of traditional assets like gas and nuclear while furthering growth of renewable energy sources like wind and solar.”

The Oneida installation is now about 70 per cent owned by Northland Power, the company said. The project received “significant funding” from Natural Resources Canada and the Canada Investment Bank and employed more than 180 Indigenous and Ontario workers during peak construction, including more than 40 through Aecon Six Nations, a majority Indigenous-owned firm.

“Oneida Energy Storage achieving commercial operation is symbolic to us on many levels,” SNGRDC President and CEO Matt Jamieson said in a release. “As a foundational partner we are especially proud to play a lead role in introducing grid-connected energy storage to the Ontario energy market. Not only does the project create value for Ontario ratepayers and our community, our involvement highlights the importance of Indigenous partnership and inclusion—it exemplifies what can be accomplished together.”

“Our partnerships-first approach to energy projects with Indigenous Peoples really enabled the Oneida vision to become a reality and also resulted in a true Canadian success story which serves as the model to replicate moving forward,” said NRStor Chair and CEO Annette Verschuren. “Today is a significant milestone for NRStor, our project partners, the Ontario government, and Canada’s clean energy future.”

“Oneida represents a pivotal step in our strategy to develop and operate battery storage facilities,” said Northland Power President and CEO Christine Healy. “Delivering this project ahead of schedule and under budget is a clear demonstration of Northland’s capability to execute large-scale energy projects safely and effectively.”

Last month, Energy Storage News cited Oneida as the “flagship” for nearly three gigawatts of battery storage that will be going into service in Ontario. It says the IESO will account for about 60 per cent of the project’s revenue.

On LinkedIn, Royal Bank of Canada Senior Vice-President John Stackhouse described Oneida as “a really big deal” that “may soon become a model for big demand users (hello, data centres) as they explore options.”

The post Oneida Energy Storage, Canada’s biggest, goes online ahead of schedule, under budget appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

By Christopher Bonasia

The Ontario government is spending $285 million on research and assessments for a pumped storage project along the shores of the Georgian Bay, as questions persist over its environmental risks and whether it’s the best energy solution for the province.

The pre-development funding continues a years-long back-and-forth between project developer TC Energy, local communities, and a provincial government pushing to expand the capacity of Ontario’s electricity system. Proponents say the project would add needed long-term storage to the grid, but regulators have questioned its economic viability and local communities are raising alarm about its environmental impacts. A final determination that weighs those factors rests on completing the pre-development assessments, which have been held up without funding.

Proposed by TC Energy in partnership with the Saugeen Ojibway Nation—representing the Saugeen First Nation and the Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation—the Ontario Pumped Storage Project (OPS) would pump water from Georgian Bay at night, when electricity is cheaper, into a 20-million-cubic-metre reservoir 150 metres above the shoreline, then release it to generate hydroelectricity at times of higher demand.

In late January, the Ministry of Energy and Electrification announced $285 million in funding for pre-development work, including the completion of detailed cost estimates and environmental assessments to determine the proposal’s feasibility. Initial reports that the pre-development funds would be paid out to the project proponent have been raising flags with veteran energy watchers in Ontario for some months.

The province did not disclose how the funds will be distributed, but the Saugeen Ojibway Nation Joint Chiefs welcomed the announcement in a letter. “Our pre-development work will include environmental studies to further our knowledge of the site impact and design of the proposed project,” they wrote. “Our work has largely been on hold throughout 2024 due to funding limitations.”

“With the $285 million commitment we are able to resume studies,” the letter continued. “We have already carried out extensive investigations on the project and have made important changes to the design to make sure it is a gold standard project.”

With studies and assessments in hand, Ontario will make a final decision on the project. TC Energy says the proposal hinges on the support of the the Saugeen Ojibway, which would have the option to enter an equity partnership if it moves forward. If approved, construction could begin later this decade, with operations starting in the early 2030s, writes the Owen Sound Sun Times.

Provincial Funding Committed

Former energy minister Todd Smith was expected to approve OPS toward the end of 2023. But in a  January 9, 2024 Ministerial Directive he withheld a final decision, citing previous analysis that pumped storage projects did not compare favourably to alternatives like battery energy storage systems (BESS). However, that earlier analysis had not included social and economic benefits, Smith said.

Smith asked TC Energy and Saugeen to report back with the estimated costs of pre-development work. He also asked TC Energy to engage with the federal government on “additional assistance,” writing that his cabinet colleagues would expect “significant federal involvement” toward sharing those pre-development costs.

Representatives of the ministry, the provincial Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), and TC Energy did not clarify to The Energy Mix whether that report had been filed. For this and other questions, TC Energy did not reply to requests for comment, while the Ministry and IESO directed The Mix to a recent statement and did not respond to follow-up emails.

Smith was replaced as energy minister by Stephen Lecce in August. This past December, Lecce directed the IESO to enter a cost recovery agreement with TC Energy so the company could recover “prudently incurred expenses” associated with the pre-development work—work that would give the government “a more informed view” before its decision.

In a past announcement to similarly fund pre-development work for an Ontario-based energy project, $50 million awarded to the Bruce Power nuclear project was provided entirely by Natural Resources Canada.

Comparison to Battery Storage Systems

In April 2024, a second assessment [pdf] tied the project’s economic and social benefits to job creation. It compared OPS to an alternative scenario where BESS replaced pumped storage. This comparison aimed to address cost concerns raised by Smith and local advocacy group Save Georgian Bay, which argues that BESS is a cheaper, more efficient option that would avoid harm to the Georgian Bay ecosystem.

But experts suggest the two technologies cannot be compared strictly on their economics. The diversity of options give communities, utilities, and system operators opportunity to find the technology that best fits the specific needs of a region or grid.

“There is no one size fits all storage solution,” Justin Rangooni, president and CEO of Energy Storage Canada, told The Mix.

The Ministry says BESS is critical for responding quickly to short-term demand, while OPS would fill a gap with long-term storage capable of providing “up to 1,000 megawatts of clean, affordable, and reliable electricity storage”, enough able to power one million average Ontario homes for up to 11 hours.

The assessment frames concludes that the Meaford project also offers greater job creation and social benefits because its supply chains are domestic, while BESS systems rely on international outsourcing. For this reason, opting for an equivalent BESS investment would provide $3.2 billion lower GDP gains, 24,000 fewer jobs, and 63% lower tax revenues. In comparison, the net benefit of pursuing OPS would be equivalent to $3.5 billion, the assessment finds.

But those numbers are based on existing supply chains. A 2024 brief by the Canadian Renewable Energy Association—about protecting Canadian manufacturing from competition with China—found that while Canada had no domestic supplier of BESS components, that problem could be addressed. Indeed, Natural Resource Canada’s Advanced Clean Energy Program aims to do just that with further research, and by augmenting domestic materials sourcing and battery recycling.

“Both pumped hydro and BESS offer substantial opportunities for domestic supply chains in Canada,” said Rangooni. Pumped storage can use domestic supply chains for materials like concrete and steel, he explained, while BESS supports investments in domestic manufacturing and creates the potential for supply chain investment within Canada.

Years of Public Engagement

The project was publicly announced to Meaford residents in late 2019 and has since been a divisive issue for the municipality. TC Energy has so far commissioned a regional economic study [pdf] and a report on the project’s value [pdf], both released in 2020.

Meanwhile, groups like Save Georgian Bay have raised concerns about the project’s impacts on the environment and nearby communities. The group points to possible impacts on local fish populations, dangers from unexploded munitions and toxic waste due to its proximity to a military base, and damage to the Niagara Escarpment. TC Energy says those impacts can be addressed.

So far, the project has not undergone the required assessment to resolve those disagreements.

In early 2023, a 5-2 vote by Meaford City Council conditionally approved the project following a meeting of “intense drama,” reported the Owen Sound Sun Times. But since the project would be sited on federal land owned by the Department of National Defence, it only needs to be okayed by the provincial and federal governments—not local municipalities.

Councillor Rob Uhrig explained after the council debate that the vote was meant “for regulatory and negotiating control,” as council lacked authority to grant approval.

Mayor Ross Kentner said he was concerned the project would proceed “no matter what we did”—but after TC Energy’s initial “ham-handed approach,” he has been impressed by their improvements for the project and community relations.

Nearby Owen Sound also voted to conditionally support the project, while four other municipalities in the vicinity remain opposed. Grey County Council, which represents nine municipalities in the area, has also passed a motion of support.

The approving votes followed an ambitious campaign undertaken by TC Energy to engage with the community and build grassroots support. Last summer, The Narwhal wrote that a leaked recording suggested the campaign mirrored past strategies—used by TC Energy for getting project approvals elsewhere—including what speakers on the recording referred to as “base tactics” like casually meeting politicians and bureaucrats, shaping media stories, “leveraging” relationships with Canadian diplomats, and using Indigenous leaders as “validators” to sway politicians.

Responding to the recording, Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation’s Chief Greg Nadjiwon told The Narwhal those tactics are “a corporate game” that reflects “old-school thinking,” adding that he would walk even more carefully in the relationship with TC Energy.

The company said community engagement is integral to operations that “need to earn the support and trust of local people and local communities.”

The Saugeen Ojibway Nation did not reply to a request for comment, but said in the letter that its decision will rest on assessments that emerge from the pre-development work.

The post Ontario pours $285M into studies for controversial pumped storage project appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

By Norman W. Park

The demand for electricity is growing rapidly as the world transitions from fossil fuels to low carbon-emitting forms of energy. However, making this transition will be difficult.

Ontario is projected to require 75 per cent more electricity by 2050, spurred by increasing demand from the industrial sector, data centres, electric vehicle (EV) adoption and households, according to the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO).

To meet this demand, Ontario Energy Minister Stephen Lecce has proposed transforming the province into an “energy superpower” by aggressively expanding nuclear energy and natural gas while cutting support for wind and solar renewable energy.

This plan was spelled out in a policy directive from Lecce instructing the IESO to consider bids from all energy sources, opening the door to allow bids from natural gas and nuclear energy.

This is a departure from previous policies. Previously, under former Energy Minister Todd Smith, the IESO had stipulated bids for the electrical grid should only be from wind, solar, hydro or biomass.

The Ontario government should reconsider these plans. Non-renewable energy sources are costly, rely on new, expensive technologies, ignore the harm to human health and ignore the consequences for global warming.

Expanding nuclear

A central pillar of the Ontario government’s energy plan is the aggressive expansion of nuclear power. The province has committed to refurbishing 14 CANDU reactors at Bruce, Darlington and Pickering, and has proposed constructing new reactors at Bruce.

Ontario is also the first jurisdiction in the world to contractually build a BWRX–300 small modular reactor project at Darlington, despite not knowing its projected cost.

The cost of this small modular reactor may be much higher than similarly sized solar, wind and natural gas projects. This is unsurprising, given that the costs of nuclear projects are often much higher than projected.

Ontario encountered a similar issue when the Darlington nuclear generating station was constructed. The actual costs of nuclear projects were more than double projected costs and took almost six years longer to complete than projected.

Given these historical challenges and uncertainties, the province’s push for nuclear expansion is a cause for concern.

Opposition to wind and solar

Despite significant cost reductions in utility-scale wind and solar farms, which makes them less expensive than nuclear and fossil fuels in many parts of the world, Ontario’s recent policy directive reduced support for these non-emitting renewable energy sources.

The directive is a continuation of the government’s antipathy to wind and solar energy. Shortly after winning its first election in 2018, the Doug Ford government cancelled 750 renewable energy contracts at a cost of $230 million to Ontario residents. Ford defended this decision by saying it saved taxpayers $790 million and that wind turbines had “destroyed” Ontario’s energy file.

Unsurprisingly, growth of wind and solar energy in Ontario has stalled since the Ford government gained power. This slowdown has put it at odds with international trends. Between 2018 and 2023, the global growth of solar and wind energy nearly doubled and is projected to continue growing.

By curtailing support for renewable energy, Ontario risks missing out on the economic, environmental and technological benefits these energy sources offer. In other words, it may hinder the province’s ability to transition to a cleaner and more sustainable energy future.

Support for natural gas

Instead of investing in wind and solar to power Ontario’s electrical grid, the province has increased its reliance on natural gas. This expansion has tripled the percentage of energy provided by gas-fired turbines from four per cent in 2017 to 12.8 per cent in 2023. It’s projected to grow to 25 per cent by 2030.

Burning more natural gas increases the risk of premature death and emits more greenhouse gas compared to wind and solar energy.

According to Health Canada, outdoor air pollution has a total economic cost in Canada of $120 billion per year, and it resulted in 6,000 premature deaths per year in Ontario and 15,300 deaths in Canada. That’s about eight times higher than the annual number of motor vehicle fatalities in Canada.

Shifting focus from natural gas to cleaner energy sources like wind and solar could reduce these environmental and health impacts in Ontario.

Reconsidering Ontario’s energy transition

Ontario’s energy transition must involve supplying more energy to an expanding electrical grid while ensuring it remains reliable and resilient. The current government’s plans to turn the province into an “energy superpower” will commit Ontario to decades of costly expenditures and relies on unproven new technologies.

The government’s proposal to increase natural gas to supply the electricity grid and new buildings will increase the risk of premature death and serious illness to Ontarians and will increase greenhouse gas emission, undermining efforts to combat global warming.

Lecce should reconsider his current policy directive to the IESO. Future bids for the electrical grid should instead be evaluated for their impacts on the health of Ontario residents and climate change.

Ontario’s energy policies should also be guided by knowledgeable experts outside of government, rather than solely by politicians. Establishing a blue-ribbon committee comprising energy scientists and environmental specialists would provide needed oversight and ensure the province’s energy strategy is cost-effective, technologically sound and aligned with climate goals.

Ontario has an opportunity to lead by example in balancing energy needs with environmental and health priorities.

The post Opinion: Prioritizing nuclear power and natural gas over renewable energy is a risky move for Ontario’s energy future appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

By Gaye Taylor with files from Mitchell Beer

Battery energy storage is the most affordable, lowest-emission path to meeting Ontario’s growing electricity demand and delivering a reliable power supply in rural Ottawa, and it can get the job done with a laser focus on safety, concludes a new analysis by Dunsky Energy + Climate released Thursday.

Battery energy storage systems (BESS) win big on community, costs, and climate, concludes the study commissioned by Evolugen, a Gatineau, Quebec-based unit of Brookfield Renewables that is seeking to build a 250-megawatt BESS facility in the rural community of South March, in Ottawa’s west end.

While the BESS project is to be sited in South March, city councillor Cathy Curry also stressed the technology’s central importance to industrial users in the Kanata North Tech Park, where the report launch took place.

“Something that has been an ongoing theme for the last three years has been energy in the park,” Curry said. “We have a cluster of 540 companies here that want to be near each other,” and “anywhere there is energy is where they want to be.”

She added that tech companies like Ericsson and Nokia, guided by regulations in Sweden and Finland, respectively, are increasingly looking for clean power. “We have to follow those other rules, as well, so we need more green, renewable energy.”

And with tech park companies engaged in a massive amount of research, development, and testing, “they need redundant energy. They can’t have projects going on and then their energy glitches out. That will destroy sometimes years of research, so there has to be seamless, redundant energy in the park.”

Resilience and Safety

But the main focus of the Dunsky report was on the role of BES systems in making energy-dependent communities more resilient and safe. “Outages of more than a few hours pose a risk to public safety, communication, water supply, fuel supply, transportation, refrigeration, food distribution, and medical services,” said Senior Consultant Janice Ashworth.

Energy resilience must be top of mind for Ottawa, the study added, with grid-damaging wind and ice storms “expected to increase in the region,” 40% of grid infrastructure due to be replaced within the decade, and the local population expected to grow by at least 40% by 2050.

To meet that challenge, BESS steps up fast when it is available: “Batteries have ultra-rapid responses to [grid] disruptions and can add or subtract power from the grid within milliseconds to keep the grid stable,” Roger Dargaville, director of Australia’s Monash Energy Institute, told Dunsky.

BESS can also be built at speed: a 9-MW battery system was installed in Stratford, Ontario, in four months, and the systems are also eminently scalable.

Dollars Saved, Emissions Reduced

The reliability of BESS also means money saved. “Every kilowatt-hour of electricity NOT delivered (during an outage) has an approximate cost to the economy of $12 to $50 per kilowatt-hour,” the report states.

And lower electricity system costs mean lower electricity bills for ratepayers. When Ontario completed a major electricity procurement last year, battery systems won big on cost, supplying 1,784 megawatts of capacity compared to just 411 MW for gas.

The increase in local storage capacity reduces the need for costly, new transmission and distribution infrastructure. And batteries stand to shield Ontario ratepayers from the impact of carbon pricing on gas generation—and utilities from costly curtailments.

Buying into BESS also means the province will need fewer gas plants to meet peak electricity demand. The province’s Independent Electricity System Operator expects demand to grow 75% by 2050, and “significant resource buildout is needed,” Dunsky warns (though the IESO calculation predates this week’s disruptive news of China’s DeepSeek artificial intelligence model). “Each 2,500 MW of BESS installed will save 260 kilotonnes of carbon dioxide per year, the equivalent to taking 60,000 gas cars off the road,” the consultancy says.

Polling by local distribution company Hydro Ottawa indicates customers want climate action and support the investments that will drive such action forward.

Safety Built In

Consistent with industry standards, Evolugen’s proposed BESS facility in South March will feature lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries, not the nickel manganese cobalt (NMC) units that have been “linked to most battery fires,” Dunsky writes.

The system will be built to the UL 9540A standard to prevent thermal runaway and ensure safe site design, with 24/7 site monitoring with advanced sensors. Evolugen is working closely with Ottawa Fire Services, and close collaboration with emergency response teams is also standard.

During the report launch, Geoff Wright, Evolugen’s senior vice president and head of development, stressed that the company takes safety seriously, drawing on expertise from across Brookfield’s global network to ensure that projects reflect the latest experience and lessons learned in an industry where safety keeps improving while system costs continue to fall.

“We take our role very seriously,” he told participants. “These projects don’t get built unless we meet all the standards and work with all the partners to make sure we’re implementing the infrastructure in a way that is responsible and safe.”

He added: “This is not just about adding some additional equipment to the electrical system. This is very much a mission-driven exercise.”

With a number of concerned citizens from South March in the audience, session moderator Angela Keller-Herzog, executive director of Community Associations for Environmental Sustainability (CAFES), asked Wright if he would commit his company to answering every question about the project that it receives from community members, within a “reasonable time frame”, and as substantively as possible. Wright agreed.

“We’re looking at multiple months of engagement here, and we welcome it,” he said. “I know that we are creating a little bit of anxiety around what the plans are, and I’m here to tell you that we want to share those plans, we want to be transparent, and we want your feedback.”

The Dunsky report landed as the City of Ottawa’s Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee (ARAC) approved zoning amendments to established land use policy for BESS siting in Ottawa.  Ottawa residents are divided on BESS deployment, CBC News reports, and on whether the draft zoning amendments are unduly restrictive. The proposal will go to the city’s Planning and Housing Committee February 5, then on to city council February 12.

The post Batteries offers best, cheapest path to energy resilience for rural Ottawa: Report appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

By Tova Gaster

Ontario developers are embracing innovative design to reduce commercial building emissions. In Cambridge, investors are launching the province’s first zero-carbon industrial complex, while a zero-carbon office building in Waterloo has achieved full energy self-sufficiency, saving C$120,000 annually in electricity costs.

The Eagle Street Industrial Park in Cambridge, Ontario, is expected to be the first industrial building in Ontario—and one of only eight in Canada—to be certified under the Canada Green Building Council (CaGBC) version 3 standard for operational and embodied carbon, Cambridge Today reports.

The building uses recycled steel and concrete and an air-source heat pump system to reduce emissions from both construction and operations. It doesn’t run on solar yet, but the building’s roof is pre-engineered for future solar installation.

Investor spokesperson Michael Hilson said the sustainability features were designed in to “future-proof” the building, so it doesn’t become obsolete as green building standards advance. While green building construction is still more expensive than the alternative, the developers say they’re investing up front for a building that lasts.

Meanwhile, another group of developers are officially reaping the benefits of a zero-carbon office building at the University of Waterloo Research and Technology Park.

The Evolv1 [pdf] building, Canada’s first zero-carbon building to receive CaGBC design certification upon its completion in 2018, became “self-sufficient in electricity” following the installation of a 768-kilowatt rooftop and carport solar array, SolarEdge said in a release.

Creating more energy than it consumes, the net-positive building’s power generation capacity offset 105% of the facility’s energy use and saved about $360,000 in energy costs over three years.

Evolv1 also includes geothermal energy, electric vehicle charging, and a multitude of other sustainability features. And it is built to look green, said Manuel Riemer, a behavioural psychologist involved in the design process. The building includes a 40-foot living wall, a geothermal well, and a 40,000-litre cistern.

Riemer wanted to test whether green building design could make people feel more connected to nature and influence them to make more eco-conscious business choices.

“We also do tours so that the people who work there know the features and they really connect to it as a green building,” Riemer said.

Evolv1’s team wanted to prove that net-zero could sell. By attracting commercial tenants without a loss to builders or developers, the building is a challenge to the industry to “do better,” Reimer said [pdf].

The post Green building investments cut energy demand, pay off for Ontario developers appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

By Tova Gaster

Ontario developers are embracing innovative design to reduce commercial building emissions. In Cambridge, investors are launching the province’s first zero-carbon industrial complex, while a zero-carbon office building in Waterloo has achieved full energy self-sufficiency, saving C$120,000 annually in electricity costs.

The Eagle Street Industrial Park in Cambridge, Ontario, is one of only eight in Canada to be certified under the CaGBC version 3 standard for operational and embodied carbon.

The building uses recycled steel and concrete and an air-source heat pump system to reduce emissions from both construction and operations. It doesn’t run on solar yet, but the building’s roof is pre-engineered for future solar installation.

Investor spokesperson Michael Hilson said the sustainability features were designed in to “future-proof” the building, so it doesn’t become obsolete as green building standards advance. While green building construction is still more expensive than the alternative, the developers say they’re investing up front for a building that lasts.

Meanwhile, another group of developers are officially reaping the benefits of a zero-carbon office building at the University of Waterloo Research and Technology Park.

The Evolv1 [pdf] building, Canada’s first zero-carbon building to receive CaGBC design certification upon its completion in 2018, became “self-sufficient in electricity” following the installation of a 768-kilowatt rooftop and carport solar array, SolarEdge said in a release.

Creating more energy than it consumes, the net-positive building’s power generation capacity offset 105 per cent of the facility’s energy use and saved about $360,000 in energy costs over three years.

Evolv1 also includes geothermal energy, electric vehicle charging, and a multitude of other sustainability features. And it is built to look green, said Manuel Riemer, a behavioural psychologist involved in the design process. The building includes a 40-foot living wall, a geothermal well, and a 40,000-litre cistern.

Riemer wanted to test whether green building design could make people feel more connected to nature and influence them to make more eco-conscious business choices.

“We also do tours so that the people who work there know the features and they really connect to it as a green building,” Riemer said.

Evolv1’s team wanted to prove that net-zero could sell. By attracting commercial tenants without a loss to builders or developers, the building is a challenge to the industry to “do better,” Reimer said [pdf].

The post Green building investments cut energy demand, pay off for Ontario developers appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

As Ontario seeks to “unlock” Crown land for new renewable energy projects, one northern Ontario firm is suggesting a closer, more practical solution—solar panels on parking lots.

Atul Sharma, a consultant for Sault Ste. Marie-based Algoma Energy Solutions, told CBC News that solar panels aren’t often added to car parks because of the high initial investment.

“First we have to build the structure, and that comes with a lot of labour costs, then we have to cover the whole parking lot,” he said. “But it’s worth it, because it would produce enough power to supply the shopping malls and the Walmarts.”

He added that parking lots have unique advantages for solar installations.

“There’s a lot of space and no shade around,” he said. “We can also tilt the panels southwards with no obstacles,” a significant advantage over rooftops that may have obstructions.

The panels also provide shade for parked vehicles and people. And their location close to buildings makes power transmission more efficient compared to more remote projects.

Sharma was commenting in response to Ontario’s recent long-term energy procurement plan, the province’s largest such initiative to date. The government aims to add 5,000 megawatts of new electrical generating capacity by 2050 to meet a projected 60% rise in demand. The plan includes efforts to site new renewable energy projects where communities consent.

To abide by this caveat, the government says it will introduce incentives for projects in northern Ontario “with a plan to unlock Crown Lands for renewable energy.”

But Sharma said building on Crown land misses some of the co-benefits of building over parking lots. Other organizations are calling for a similar approach, including the Ontario Clean Air Alliance, which advocates for solar panels over parking lots in Toronto.

While the Clean Air Alliance has not calculated the costs, it says the energy generated could replace electricity from gas plants like the Portlands Energy Centre.

Putting solar panels over parking lots would be “good for everyone in Ontario except for gas companies,” said Alliance chair Jack Gibbons. “There’s a lot of untapped potential in parking lots.”

The post Parking lots a better fit for solar than crown land: Ontario developer appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

By Christopher Bonasia

A new financing approach is helping smaller residential developments access funding for geoexchange systems by bundling multiple projects into a single financing facility to reduce costs and secure better terms.

Vancity Community Investment Bank (VCIB) is working with Forum Asset Management—an asset manager, investor, and developer—and with Subterra Renewables, a North American geothermal exchange utility. Together, they are financing projects that supply heating and cooling in new residential buildings across Ontario.

The projects will install geoexchange systems, also known as ground-source heat pumps, which use underground pipes to pull or store heat from the earth for smaller multi-residential buildings, mostly condos. It’s the second such agreement between VCIB and its partners.

“We’ve become especially adept at financing where we see there to be a market gap, which is in smaller building scale, energy efficiency, and renewable energy projects,” Trish Nixon, VCIB’s managing director of climate finance, told The Energy Mix.

“We have an ability to aggregate portfolios of small projects and apply a project finance approach, particularly for energy-as-a-service models.”

Generally, project financing involves considerable costs, including lender fees, legal fees, and contracting with independent engineers and insurance consultants. This financial burden often makes project financing unavailable for smaller projects, Nixon said.

But VCIB is collaborating with the two other companies to apply the model to a number of smaller geoexchange projects that, when included together in the same portfolio, can get financing terms similar to those available to larger, utility-scale energy projects.

“We worked with them to structure a single, larger financing facility, which provides certainty and flexibility to finance individual projects as they are contracted and constructed, while allowing costs to be distributed over more projects,” Nixon said.

VCIB estimates that, by replacing traditional fossil-fuelled heating and cooling systems, the projects will avoid up to 8,500 tonnes of carbon emissions each year, equal to “taking more than 1,800 cars off the road each year or planting more than 141,000 trees.”

While Vancity also finances other decarbonized energy solutions, this partnership focuses on geoexchange. Subterra, as the developer, owns and operates the systems to provide heating and cooling as a service to building owners and condo corporations.

“We can provide efficient financing to each individual project out of this larger committed facility,” Nixon said, an approach that can be helpful for projects where upper capital is a barrier.

[Disclosure: Energy Mix Productions provides occasional editorial services to VCIB.]

The post New partnership brings geoexchange heating to Ontario condos appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

By Lia Codrington, Grace Brown, Scott MacDougall

The post Opinion: Optimizing Ontario’s electricity regulations while maintaining the province’s clean energy reputation appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.