Upload
kristopher-stevens
View
114
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Energy Matters presentation on integrated sustainable energy networks
Citation preview
Power and Prosperity to the People Good Jobs, Resilient Communities and Healthy Environments
Kristopher Stevens Executive Director May 7, 2013 www.ontario-sea.org
Over $27 billion invested in Ontario
2
OSEA is a respected advocate, facilitator and business catalyst bringing the public, commercial and community sustainable energy sector and their supporters together to address emerging trends and the development of healthy, prosperous and ecologically sustainable communities across Ontario. Who we represent: Members include individuals, manufacturers, installers, developers, municipali6es, First Na6ons, farmers, co-‐opera6ves and other community organiza6ons suppor6ve of, and engaged in, the full por>olio of sustainable energy in Ontario Vision: Every Ontarian conserves energy and generates sustainable energy either as a household or as part of a local community-‐owned business, contribu6ng to the rapid transi6on to 100% sustainable energy. Mission: To be recognized as one of Ontario’s most respected sustainable energy advocates and facilitators by providing credible, accurate and 6mely informa6on and an unparalleled network of community and commercial sector supporters and par6cipants.
Who is the Ontario Sustainable Energy Association
Our track record
• 2004: FIT campaign and report for Ontario government resulting in RESOP
• 2007: Launched Community Power Fund
• 2008: Co-hosted 7th World Wind Energy Conference in Kingston and launched campaign for Green Energy Act
• 2009-2011: Hosted 3 annual Community Power Conferences
• 2011: Defended Green Energy and Economy Act with the WattsNEXT? Campaign and TV commercials
• 2012: Secured partnership with Reed Exhibitions to host the All Energy Canada Conference
3
A little over four years ago we started the GEA campaign at WWEC 2008 in Kingston
4 World Wind Energy Conference, 2008 – St. Lawrence College, Kingston
We need your help!
www.ontario-‐sea.org
5
Utilities are already experts at dealing with variability
http://go.ontario-‐sea.org/GlobalFutures2012
“Utility experts pointed out that managing variability is nothing new: utilities have contended with variability since the dawn of centralized power networks, although mostly in terms of demand variability rather then supply variability.”
6
What’s possible?
Paul Gipe, 2012 – http://www.wind-works.org 7
Energiewende & the Prosumer
8
http://go.ontario-‐sea.org/TheEnergyRevolution
http://go.ontario-sea.org/CentralizedvsDecentralized2020
Free access to all future webinars and archives for government staff
http://go.ontario-sea.org/past-webinars
Germany Energy Transition, 2012 – www.energytransition.de 9
FITs neutralize RFP’s failure to meaningfully engage and benefit communities
10
Washington, DC . Mexico City . San Salvador . Rio de Janeiro . San?ago de Chile . Lagos . Cape Town Nairobi . Addis Ababa . Berlin . Brussels . Warsaw . Prague . Sarajevo . Belgrade . Zagreb . Istanbul
Kiev . Moscow . Tbilisi . Kabul . Lahore . New Dheli . Chiang Mai . Phnom Penh . Beijing Germany Energy Transition, 2012 – www.energytransition.de 11
12
13 Ontario Power Generation, 2013 – www.opg.com
Sir Adam Beck (a Conservative) created a 100% sustainable public
energy system that generated surplus power to drive Ontario’s
economy…
13
Ontario’s Long-Term
Energy Plan
18 19
Build
ing
Our
Cle
an E
nerg
y Fu
ture
FIGURE 5: BUILDING A CLEANER ELECTRICITY SYSTEM
Coal Free
The Ontario government is committed to improving the health of Ontarians and fighting climate change. Coal-fired plants have been the single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the province and among the largest emitters of smog-causing pollutants. Ontario’s reliance on coal-fired generation shot up 127 per cent from 1995-2003, significantly polluting the province’s air. During that period Ontario also relied on importing coal-fired power from the United States. An Ontario study found the health and environmental costs of coal at $3 billion annually (“Cost Benefit Analysis: Replacing Ontario’s Coal-Fired Electricity Generation,” April 2005).
Since 2003, the government has reduced the use of dirty coal-!red plants by 70 per cent. Eliminating coal-fired electricity generation will account for the majority of Ontario’s greenhouse gas reduction target by 2014 — the equivalent of taking 7 million cars o" the road.
FIGURE 4: CONTRAST BETWEEN GENERATION AND INSTALLED CAPACITY
Selecting a supply mix and investment in supply is a matter of choices and trade-offs. A variety of power supply sources — some designed for baseload requirements, some designed for meeting peak requirements — is superior to relying heavily on only one source. For this long-term plan the government has considered environmental, economic, health, social and cost implications to come up with the best possible supply mix.
This improved supply mix will be cleaner, sustainable, modern and reliable. It phases out coal-!red generation at a faster pace, it modernizes Ontario’s nuclear #eet, it includes more renewables, it maximizes hydroelectric power over the near term, and it advances Ontario’s conservation goals.
By 2030, Ontario will have completely eliminated coal as a generation source and will have also increased wind, solar and bioenergy from less than one per cent of generation capacity in 2003 to almost 13 per cent. To ensure reliability, the strategic use of natural gas will be required to complement renewable generation. Nuclear will continue to supply about 50 per cent of Ontario’s electricity needs.
The following chapter will include a review of the various components of Ontario’s electricity supply:
Ontario’s evolving electricity pie
Ontario Ministry of Energy, 2011 – http://www.mei.gov.on.ca/en/ 14
The FIT 2.0 recommendations put great emphasis on community
1. Continue commitment to clean energy 2. Streamline processes and create jobs 3. Encourage greater community
and aboriginal participation 4. Improve municipal engagement 5. Reduce price to reflect lower costs 6. Expand Ontario’s clean energy
economy
Ontario’s Feed-in Tariff Program Two Year Review Report – http://tinyurl.com/c6b5d8j
Kristopher Stevens, June 2012 – M’Chigeent First Nation, Ontario, Canada
15
FIT Contracts and Large FIT Applications as of January 31, 2013
Ontario Power Authority, January 21, 2013 – http://go.ontario-sea.org/FITQupdateJanuary312013 16
MicroFIT project summary
Number of Applications (MicroFIT1.0)
Sum of Applications-kw (MicroFIT 1.0)
Number of Applications (MicroFIT 2.0)
Sum of Applications-kw (MicroFIT 2.0)
Total Applications
47,127 430,352 kw 10,590 98,309 kw
Rejected 23,015 211,553 kw 5,359 49,606 kw Conditional offer
3,679 35,879 kw 3,488 32,748 kw
Connected 56 432 kw 80 680 kw Contract Executed
14,706 128,688 kw 575 4,863 kw
Ontario Power Authority, February 18, 2013 – http://go.ontario-sea.org/microfitfeb2013 17
Small FIT 2.0 Community and Aboriginal set-aside
2/3+ are community/Aboriginal 4000+ applications = ~ 825MW
Aboriginal set-aside 1000+ applications = ~200 MW
Community set-aside 458 applications = ~85 MW
Community & Aboriginal Priority At least another 2-300 MW
18 Ontario Power Authority, January 28, 2013 - http://go.ontario-sea.org/Jan282013smallFITsummary
Small FIT employment potential
0.0
5,000.0
10,000.0
15,000.0
20,000.0
25,000.0
200 MW 400 MW 600 MW
Total employment
Total employment
Derived from OSEA’s Economic Impact Assessment Tool in partnership with the Conference Board of Canada and ClearSky Advisors
OSEA, March 23, 2013 – www.ontario-sea.org 19
impact of the small FIT under 2.0
$0
$1,000,000,000
$2,000,000,000
$3,000,000,000
$4,000,000,000
$5,000,000,000
$6,000,000,000
$7,000,000,000
$8,000,000,000
Total investment Total impact on GDP Wages and Salaries Taxes
600 MW
400 MW
200 MW
OSEA, March 23, 2013 – www.ontario-sea.org 20
Short Term (now to 2014) Medium Term (2015 – 2018) Long Term (2019 & beyond)
• Phase out remaining coal-fired generation (approx. 3,500 MW) • Up to 7,500 MW of non-hydro renewable generation installed capacity • Installed wind generation capacity approx. 1,500 MW today • Surplus Baseload Generation occurring more frequently
• Embedded generation increasing • Conservation and Demand Management targets • Rate increases (approx. 45% by 2014)
• Coal phase out complete • Up to 10,700 MW of planned non-hydro renewable generation capacity
• Existing Bruce and Darlington nuclear units out of service for upgrades; no capacity gap assuming operation of Pickering units extended • Without extension of Pickering units, capacity gap starts in 2016 • Capacity gap will start sooner than 2016 if the 10,700 MW target for non-hydro renewables not being met (e.g., attrition)
• Capacity gap up to 2,400 MW until nuclear units return to service in 2023
25000
27000
29000
31000
33000
2012 2013 2014
MW
Capacity Available at Peak
Demand + Reserve Reqt
2015 2016 2017 2018
Without Pickering
Ext.
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Source: OPS IPSP Planning and Consultation Overview , May 2011
Scenario 1: Generation oversupply continues to 2019 (nuclear availability and little
FIT attrition)
Scenario 2: Generation capacity needed by 2016 or
sooner (nuclear unavailability and major FIT attrition)
Jason Chee-Aloy, 2012 – http://www.poweradvisoryllc.com
The deficit cliff…who is served by delays?
21
Comparing Ontario’s options
Clean Air Alliance, 2011 – http://www.cleanairalliance.org/files/costcompare.pdf 22
Getting it right, not quite
Marion Fraser, Getting it Right, Not Quite - http://go.ontario-sea.org/NotQuite
Governance Green economy ✓✗ Conservation ✗ Renewable energy ✓✗ Clean distributed energy & CHP ? Community energy ✓… Aboriginal energy ✓… Procurement and connection priority ✓✗ Grid and market evolution ✓✗ Protect the environment ✓ Protect vulnerable consumers ✓
23
Remember we need to put greater emphasis on community as orginaly proposed
1. Continue commitment to clean energy 2. Streamline processes and create jobs 3. Encourage greater community
and aboriginal participation 4. Improve municipal engagement 5. Reduce price to reflect lower costs 6. Expand Ontario’s clean energy
economy
Ontario’s Feed-in Tariff Program Two Year Review Report – http://tinyurl.com/c6b5d8j
Kristopher Stevens, June 2012 – M’Chigeent First Nation, Ontario, Canada
24
A change in scale, distribution, resiliency, ownership and benefit
Preben Maegaard, 2010 – Nordik Folkecenter, Denmark 25
Copenhagen Thermal Map, 2013 – www.dbdh.dk
Copenhagen’s thermal grid
26
27
Danish Heat Supply Act 1979 (Update 2005)
- Plants larger than 1MW must be CHP - Heat must be priced to actual cost on a
non-profit basis - Electric heating in new buildings is
banned - Obligation to connect to the thermal grid
http://go.ontario-sea.org/DenmarkThermalPolicy http://go.ontario-sea.org/CanadianThermalGrids
Kristopher Stevens, 2009 – Copenhagen, Denmark
Soren Hermansen, 2013 – Samso Island, Denmark - www.energiakademiet.dk 28
Samso Island was a pioneer 20+ years ago
Juhnde’s 750 people are already 100% + 85%
http://go.ontario-‐sea.org/JUHNDE100PERCENT
Kristopher Stevens, 2012 – Juhnde, Germany 29
M’Chigeeng First Nation is one of our pioneers
M’Chigeeng First Nation built small solar projects first and then two 2MW Enercon windmills!
The Mother Earth Renewable Energy project will generate $300,000 annually for 14 years and then $1.2 million for 6 years
Kristopher Stevens, M’Chigeeng First Nation, 2012 – http://go.ontario-sea.org/MChigeengWind 30
To reduce social friction & navigate complex challenges you need to know your values
Kristopher Stevens, 2007 - http://go.ontario-sea.org/socialfriction 31
Value for money Healthy
More jobs Reliable
Resilience Local benefit and control
Pro-sumer Distributed Integrated
Sustainable/Renewable
Our culture is our most powerful technology & this is a story about us
Image by Preben Maegaard, 2010 – Nordik Folkecenter, Denmark 32
Community Power video http://go.ontario-sea.org/CommunityPowerVideo
Once we know our values we can figure out what services we really need and who/how will we pay
Alargador, 2013 - www.alargador.org 33
This is about shifting paradigms
David Roberts, 2012 (Grist News) - http://tinyurl.com/cwn9w6o 34
Solving problems and creating opportunities
David Roberts, 2012 (Grist News) - http://tinyurl.com/cwn9w6o 35
How our power and thermal system works now
Preben Maegaard, 2010 – Nordik Folecenter, Denmark – www.folkecentre.com 36
How it could work
Preben Maegaard, 2010 – Nordik Folecenter, Denmark – www.folkecentre.com 37
This should be about integrated systems Renewables @ 20% + power consumption
Quelle: Prof. Dr. –Ing. habil. Ingo Stadler
Elec
trical
Powe
r [GW
] red consumption green wind & solar production only
Based on Germany‘s consumption in 2010
Johannes Lackmann, 2012 – WestfalenWIND GmbH – www.westfalenwind.de 38
Renewables @ 40% + power consumption El
ectric
al Po
wer [
GW]
Quelle: Prof. Dr. –Ing. habil. Ingo Stadler
red consumption green wind & solar production only
Johannes Lackmann, 2012 – WestfalenWIND GmbH – www.westfalenwind.de
Based on Germany‘s consumption in 2010
39
Renewables @ 80% + power consumption El
ectric
al Po
wer [
GW]
Quelle: Prof. Dr. –Ing. habil. Ingo Stadler
red consumption green wind & solar production only
Johannes Lackmann, 2012 – WestfalenWIND GmbH – www.westfalenwind.de
Based on Germany‘s consumption in 2010
40
Renewables @ 100% + power consumption El
ectric
al Po
wer [
GW]
Quelle: Prof. Dr. –Ing. habil. Ingo Stadler
red consumption green wind & solar production only
Johannes Lackmann, 2012 – WestfalenWIND GmbH – www.westfalenwind.de
Based on Germany‘s consumption in 2010
41
Renewables @ 120% + power consumption El
ectric
al Po
wer [
GW]
Quelle: Prof. Dr. –Ing. habil. Ingo Stadler
red consumption green wind & solar production only
Johannes Lackmann, 2012 – WestfalenWIND GmbH – www.westfalenwind.de
Based on Germany‘s consumption in 2010
42
Smart Sustainable Energy Networks Heat + Electricity + Mobility
Peak power transfer Peak power transfer
Liquid fuel Gas fuel
Resources: natural gas
biogas biomass
…
Offpeak retransfer
Johannes Lackmann, 2012 – WestfalenWIND GmbH – www.westfalenwind.de 43
We need to break out of the electricity only silo
P Power demand
Demand of Storage capacity: 100%
Power curve Installed capacity:
100%
t Johannes Lackmann, 2012 – WestfalenWIND GmbH – www.westfalenwind.de
44
And exceed the electricity system boundary
P
t
Power demand
Demand of Storage capacity: 60%
Power curve Installed capacity:
150%
Johannes Lackmann, 2012 – WestfalenWIND GmbH – www.westfalenwind.de 45
In this new paradigm load shifting is key
power
time / h
loadshift loadshift
nominal load curve
PV power curve
Johannes Lackmann, 2012 – WestfalenWIND GmbH – www.westfalenwind.de 46
Lets talk opportunities! First improve energy management & efficiency
Kristopher Stevens, 2010 –Toronto, Canada 47
District Heating and CHP are the single most important improvement of energy efficiency
100%
40% 100%
40%
50%
60%
Before Now
10%
Conventional Power Plant Combined Heating/Cooling & Power
Don’t waste your heat
Preben Maegaard, 2012 – Nordik Folecenter, Denmark 48
Upgrade your infrastructure
Kristopher Stevens, 2012 – M’Chigeeng First Nation, Ontario, Canada 49
• Solar hot water heaters provide 40-60% needs • Heating water is 25% of residential energy use • Space heating accounts for 60 per cent of the energy used.
Heat your air or water
Victoria Hollick, 2010 – Solar Wall, Ontario, Canada 50
Harvest the sun for electricity
Robert Garcia, 2010 – Farmers for Economic Opportunity, Ontario, Canada 51
Use your manure, food and forest waste
Kristopher Stevens, 2008 – Heinzel Farm, Prescott-Russel, Ontario, Canada 52
To flare or engine / boiler
Tap into your sewage and landfills
53
Capture the wind
Graham Findlay, 2012 - M’Chigeeng, Ontario, Canada 54
Use your flowing water
Roberto Garcia, 2009 – Sturgeon Falls, Ontario, Canada 55
Convert old industries
Axion and Kristopher Stevens, 2012 – www.axionpower.com 56
Reservoirs, hills and mines
Heinrich Bartlett, 2009 – Innenburen, Germany 57
Put your heat in the ground - geothermal
Kristopher Stevens, 2010 – Planet Traveler Hostel, Toronto, Ontario, Canada 58
Electrify your transportation
Sun Country Highway, 2012 – Aitikokan, Ontario, Canada 59
www.suncountryhighway.ca
So what do we really need?
1. Reliable policy 2. Brave politicians 3. Long term framework and targets 4. Reasonable budgets 5. Bankable and scalable projects 6. Local integrated sustainable community action plans 7. Community networks 8. More local Heroes!
60
Value for money Healthy
More jobs Reliable
Resilience Local benefit and control
Pro-sumer Distributed Integrated
Sustainable/Renewable A stable market
To know our values!
Image by Preben Maegaard, 2010 – Nordik Folkecenter, Denmark 61
Work with us to make OUR vision a reality
www.ontario-‐sea.org
62
April 9 – 10, 2014 / Exhibition Place Toronto
2014
Kristopher Stevens Executive Director
416-977-4441 www.ontario-sea.org
Kristopher Stevens, 2012 – M’Chigeeng First Nation, Ontario, Canada 64
6
2
5
9
4
5
10
9
15
10
6
10
5
5
6
5
4
5
71
74
64
66
82
74
8
10
10
9
4
7
0 20 40 60 80 100
Total
BC
Prairie
Ontario
QC
Atlantic
Increased costs a great deal (7-9) Minor cost change (4-6)
“Thinking about the past two years or so, rate how the following things have impacted your household energy costs?” Electricity you use at home from renewable energy
Don’t assume…set the narrative Get the IESO and OEB facts out!
65
66
legitimate
vested
opportunist
Social Friction: Three types of concerned stakeholders
66
Take time to understand each other
Communities are: • Misinformed • Concerned • Frustrated • Annoyed • Fearful • Suspicious
Developers are:
• Disengaged • Divisive • Secretive • Non-transparent • Distrust • Ignoring (legitimate
concerns)
Panel at FIT Supply Chain Forum, 2012 – Toronto, Ontario Canada 67
Think about how you would like to participate…
Sherry Arnstein, 1969 – Ladder of Citizen Participation 68
69
FINANCIAL SHARES Price/Vote
Investment varies from one landowner to another based on capacity to invest ROI reflects a competitive investment based on market rates for venture capital
A Preferred share, will be repurchased five years after wind farm is operational
$1/Yes
B Non-repurchasable share along with the purchase of class A
Matched to A/No
LAND SHARES
Shares of Exploitable Area Price/Vote
Shares issued to all signed landowners. Lease option prorates shares according to area suitable for wind development
C Shares of exploitable area (lands potentially capable of accommodating wind mills)
.5 shares per hectare/ Yes
Class D shares are issued to landowners who do not want wind mills on their land, but who promise not to sign with any other wind developer and accept their neighbours project
D Non-competition of exploitable area
.5 shares per hectare/ No
Proximity Shares Price/Vote
To remunerate those making a supplementary effort to live in close proximity to windmills
E Land proximity (landowners situated within a 550 m
.5 shares per hectare/ No
F Residential proximity (issued to proprietors of residences within 700m radius of a turbine
Number of shares dependent on building type/ No
Collaborative/ Land pooling lease table
-‐$2.89
-‐$0.71
-‐$2.53
-‐$4.00
-‐$3.00
-‐$2.00
-‐$1.00
$0.00
$1.00
Case 1: New Nuclear Replaced by Wind (in 2018)
Case 2: Natural Gas Replaced by Wind (in 2018)
Case 3: New Nuclear Replaced by Wind and Natural Gas (in 2024)
$CAD (2
010)
Effect on Monthly Household Electricity Bill Prices Comparing Wind Energy Generation Replacing Potential Alternatives
Sources: ClearSky Advisors Inc. 2011; OPA 2010-‐2011; OPA, IPSP Consultation Document 2011; California Energy Commission 2010; Pembina Institute 2010; OPA, Generation Procurement Cost Disclosure 2008; Moody's Investment Service 2008
We have better options
© 2011 ClearSky Advisors Inc. 71
12.60
10.74
15.76
13.00
0
5
10
15
20
FIT Wind All Wind New Nuclear Natural Gas
Cost (¢
/kWh)
Average Cost (in 2010$) per kWh of Electricity by Generation Type by 2018
Sources: ClearSky Advisors Inc. 2011; OPA 2010-‐2011; OPA, IPSP Consultation Document 2011; California Energy Commission 2010; Pembina Institute 2010; OPA, Generation Procurement Cost Disclosure 2008; Moody's Inverstment Service 2008
Note: The total wind category includes all wind procurement programs in Ontario. The FIT wind category includes FIT and Samsung & KEPCO projects. Both of the 2018 costs for these categories have been discounted to 2010 dollars to allow for comparison with other generation types
© 2011 ClearSky Advisors Inc. 72
Ontario’s Long-Term
Energy Plan
18 19
Build
ing
Our
Cle
an E
nerg
y Fu
ture
FIGURE 5: BUILDING A CLEANER ELECTRICITY SYSTEM
Coal Free
The Ontario government is committed to improving the health of Ontarians and fighting climate change. Coal-fired plants have been the single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the province and among the largest emitters of smog-causing pollutants. Ontario’s reliance on coal-fired generation shot up 127 per cent from 1995-2003, significantly polluting the province’s air. During that period Ontario also relied on importing coal-fired power from the United States. An Ontario study found the health and environmental costs of coal at $3 billion annually (“Cost Benefit Analysis: Replacing Ontario’s Coal-Fired Electricity Generation,” April 2005).
Since 2003, the government has reduced the use of dirty coal-!red plants by 70 per cent. Eliminating coal-fired electricity generation will account for the majority of Ontario’s greenhouse gas reduction target by 2014 — the equivalent of taking 7 million cars o" the road.
FIGURE 4: CONTRAST BETWEEN GENERATION AND INSTALLED CAPACITY
Selecting a supply mix and investment in supply is a matter of choices and trade-offs. A variety of power supply sources — some designed for baseload requirements, some designed for meeting peak requirements — is superior to relying heavily on only one source. For this long-term plan the government has considered environmental, economic, health, social and cost implications to come up with the best possible supply mix.
This improved supply mix will be cleaner, sustainable, modern and reliable. It phases out coal-!red generation at a faster pace, it modernizes Ontario’s nuclear #eet, it includes more renewables, it maximizes hydroelectric power over the near term, and it advances Ontario’s conservation goals.
By 2030, Ontario will have completely eliminated coal as a generation source and will have also increased wind, solar and bioenergy from less than one per cent of generation capacity in 2003 to almost 13 per cent. To ensure reliability, the strategic use of natural gas will be required to complement renewable generation. Nuclear will continue to supply about 50 per cent of Ontario’s electricity needs.
The following chapter will include a review of the various components of Ontario’s electricity supply:
Talk TWh and desired benefits
Ontario Ministry of Energy, 2011 – http://www.mei.gov.on.ca/en/
Year Capacity to replace
TWh to replace
2015 881 MW 6.42 TWh 2017 881 MW 6.42 TWh 2019 881 MW 6.42 TWh 2020 881 MW 6.42 TWh
Wind - $738,300,000 Nuke cheap - $1,011,972,000 + liability
Nuke expensive - $23,754,000,000 + liability
73
July 2012
Target soft costs: Stability and predictability drive down costs!
74