Design for the Environment/Power Generation for Ontario

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Power Transmission Lines in Ontario

In contemporary societies, power generation has become as basic of a need as agriculture. However, this basic need has severe environmental impacts that originate mainly from gaseous emissions and exploitation of natural resources. The role of gaseous emissions in global warming, ozone depletion and causing chronic - sometimes fatal - respiratory diseases has been the main reason for bringing this issue into international debate. In addition, exploitation of non-renewable natural resources and its ability to limit efforts of implementing Sustainable Development has made power generation a social issue that has to be immediately resolved.

With the rise of “Environmental Awareness” around the globe, there have been efforts to replace coal - the oldest and mostly utilized resource in power generation – due to its dangerous environmental impact. Ontario’s main electricity supplier, Ontario Power Generation (OPG), which is responsible for about 70% of the province’s electricity generation, provides almost 29 TWh annually from 6,450 MW of coal-fired power plants, almost one-fifth of total provincial generation [1]. After years of lobbying and litigation, that the Province of Ontario has ordained all coal-fired power plants to be shut down and replaced, by fully nuclear and hybrid natural gas/nuclear plants by 2014 [2]. This article studies the most appropriate power production methods for the province of Ontario, Canada. For this reason, analysis and comparison of three power generation alternatives have been conducted: Coal, In-lake Wind Power and Nuclear Fusion Power.


Project Information[edit]

Section 2 – Group B8
Andrew Lazzaro (Andrew00)
Ahmed Mahmoud (ahmedm)
George Naguib (naguibge)
Mohamad Nsouli (nsoulimo)

Proposed Alternatives[edit]

Coal[edit]

Given the abundance and manageability of coal, it’s no surprise that it is one of the most important fossil fuels used in Canada, and particularly in Ontario, which itself holds 1.3 billion tonnes of proven reserves [3]. Ontario’s main electricity supplier, Ontario Power Generation (OPG), which is responsible for about 70% of the province’s electricity generation, provides almost 29 TWh annually from 6,450 MW of coal-fired power plants, almost one-fifth of total provincial generation [4].

The Nanticoke plant in Haldimand County is OPG’s flagship coal-fired power plant. With 8 generating units capable of producing up to 3,920 megawatts of power and an annual production in the range of 20 to 24 billion kilowatt-hours, enough “to run nearly 2.5 million households for a full year,” the Nanticoke plant is by far the largest in North America [5].


A Pulverized Coal (PC) plant generates its electricity by grinding chunks of coal into fine powder then combusting it in an industrial furnace surrounded by walls of water-filled boiler tubing. The heat causes the water to boil into steam, which moves at a high speed to the turbine. There, it pushes the blades of the turbine and causes it to spin at a very high speed. The turbine is connected to a rotor, which is a large electromagnet that produces rotating magnetic fields. These fields move across coils of wire in the generator, producing electricity that can be sent across transmission lines to customers. [6]

This method was so successful because it is simple, cost-effective, tried-and-true, and sustainable in the short-run due to coal's abundance[4][7]. It has been in use as early as the 1920s [8], constitutes almost 18% of Canada’s power generation, and has is of great importance to the Canadian economy, as coal mining and coal power plants contribute about $5 billion to the economy and employ almost 396,000 Canadians [9] .

However, as the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) will show, coal-based power generation has profound environmental impacts which render it w:Sustainability unsustainable]. Specifically, coal is a non-renewable resource, with estimates of its lifetime running as low as 100 years [10][11]. Further, every, the flue gas produced in coal combustion contains almost 128,000 tons of CO2, which contributes greatly to global warming, as well as 620,000 tonnes of SOx and 262,000 tonnes of NOx, which can “severely impair respiratory functions and change metabolic rates of humans” and “cause corrosion to building materials,”[4] as well as 1990 kg of Mercury which is one of the most damaging pollutants to the ecosystem. Several studies have found that coal-fired plants are the biggest source of mercury, which results in almost 4,400 premature deaths annually in Canada [12].

Already Canada exports $2.2 billion worth of coal [13], and as Ontario approaches the phase-out date, Canadian coal miners have shifted towards exporting more coal in order to offset the economic impact of the phase-out [14].

Wind Power Generation[edit]

Wind Turbine Components

Wind turbines generate power which can be supplied to an existing power grid and supplemented for more environmentally damaging power generation techniques. The basic components of a wind turbine are the rotor and blades, hub, driveshaft, gearbox, generator and tower. The rotor converts wind energy into mechanical energy which then is fed through the gearbox and converted into electrical energy via the generator. Submarine cables then transfer the newly acquired energy to an offshore transformer station where the voltage is stepped up and sent to the onshore power grid [15].

Wind power, being a clean energy source, reduces the current reliance on non-renewable resources that produce greenhouse gas emissions and toxic releases for power generation. There is a great potential for large projects offshore, higher available wind speeds and a reduced amount of turbulence and wind shear. This allows for greater efficiency while reducing turbine height requirements and fatigue when compared to onshore projects. However, capital investment and operation and maintenance costs are higher for offshore farms due to the increased technical challenge. This is mostly due to limited access to the site. Specific hydraulic barges and offshore cranes are required.

Nuclear Fusion Power Generation[edit]

The Nuclear Fusion Reaction

With growing populations, economic instability, and the problems associated with destruction of the environment in power generation, the world is in need of a new technology which – when fully established – can generate power for larger populations while keeping in mind the economic and environmental impacts of such technology. For a number of years now, the technology of Nuclear Fusion has been under consideration. When implemented, this state-of-the-art technology will provide power for growing populations with no negative effects on the environment due to its minimal emissions.

Advantages of Nuclear Fusion [16]

1. Fuel Supply: The fuel used in Nuclear Fusion is readily available in the environment. Deuterium is found in seawater and tritium can be produced using lithium which is also found abundantly in the earth’s crust.

2. Environmental: With no carbon emissions, this energy source is immediately placed at a higher environmental standard than most other sources. Also, the radioactive waste is very minimal compared to conventional nuclear fission reactors.

3. Melt-down avoidance: Due to the nature of the fusion reaction, there is only enough fuel in the plasma for approximately 5 minutes of operation, and in the case of a loss of coolant, the reaction would naturally ramp down.

4. No Nuclear Proliferation: Unlike the dangers associated with nuclear fission reactors, there aren’t any fissile materials necessary for nuclear proliferation.

5. High Energy Concentration: In relation to the amount of land and natural resources used, the energy production concentration far exceeds any other current power generation source.

Research into the Nuclear Fusion technology has been a worldwide effort since the late 1980’s. For the purpose of this report, we will use the 500MW ITER (International Thermo-Nuclear Experimental Reactor) Project as the basis for our analysis. ITER’s research is based in USA, Canada, Japan, Russia, and the European Union.

Suggested power generation operations are to contribute to 30% of Ontario’s need. The three alternatives were compared based on the following criteria: Functionality, Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Analysis (EIOLCA), Streamlined LCA (SLCA), Expenses, and Societal Impact. The aim of this report is to inspect the feasibility of an innovative and reliable process to produce “Green Energy”.

Highlights and Recommendations[edit]

Three proposed alternatives to provide power to the Province of Ontario were analyzed and compared. Comparison was made based on the following criteria:

• Functionality: Ability to provide Ontario with 500 MW-hr of “Green Electricity”

• Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Analysis (EIOLCA): Combined Economic expenses and Environmental Impact (i.e. Emissions)

• Streamlined LCA (SLCA): Scoring based on Guidelines and Protocols presented in the course

• Expenses: Costs incurred by each alternative

• Societal Impact: the effect of each alternative on the society

The following table ranks each alternative based on its performance in each category:

Nsouli.jpg

The above table shows a trend that places In-Lake Wind Power ahead of Nuclear Fusion and Coal. The Streamlined Life Cycle Analysis revealed that In-Lake Wind Power and Nuclear Fusion Power supersede Coal-Based Power. However, “subjective” SLCA can not be utilized to order the alternatives, especially with the insignificant score difference between Nuclear and In-Lake Power. In addition, all three alternatives had negative and positive societal impact; therefore, this criterion can not be used for ranking alternatives.

Coal, In-Lake Wind Turbines, and Nuclear Fusion Reactors can provide Ontario with 500 MW-hr of electricity. Coal has serious health consequences (chronic diseases) and environmental impacts: Global Warming Potential. In addition, operational costs of a Coal Power Plant exceed those of a Nuclear Fusion Reactor and In-Lake Wind Turbines. For these reasons, it is recommended that Coal-Based Power Plants not be considered as good alternatives for power production.

As for the Nuclear Fusion Power and In-Lake Wind Power, this report revealed that both alternatives are environmentally friendly. However, In-Lake Wind Power has fewer emissions and environmental depletion potential than Nuclear Fusion Power. In addition, In-Lake Wind Power is less expensive to utilize over a 20 years period than Nuclear Fusion Power. Based on these results and on the fact that Nuclear Fusion Technology is still in the experimental phase, In-Lake Wind Power is the best Power Generation alternative.

However, as mentioned earlier in this article, In-Lake Wind Power is not as reliable as Nuclear Fusion Power. Therefore, a detailed study on the reliability of In-Lake Wind Power is recommended before the construction of a network of In-Lake Wind Turbines.

Functional Analysis[edit]

All 3 power generation alternatives can provide 500 MW-hr of electricity for the province of Ontario. The use of coal in power generation causes gaseous emissions and exploits reserves of this natural resource; thus, Coal-Based Power Generation is not environmentally friendly. On the other hand, In-Lake Wind Power can meet the power generation requirements with no significant environmental impact. Being Offshore, turbines used in this alternative will require cutting-edge technology to implement an efficient (minimal loss) power transmission network and to maintain the turbines being exposed to high winds and aquatic stresses. Finally, Nuclear Fusion Power Generation is an efficient power generation method (1,758 output to input energy ratio) with no significant environmental impact during the power generation process (not including sectors that feed the process). Both Nuclear Fusion Power Generation and In-Lake Wind Power can produce 500 MW-hr with no significant environmental impact; however, Nuclear Fusion is more reliable than In-Lake Power since the latter depends on the intensity of winds (uncontrollable factor) while the inputs (fuel) and outputs (thermal energy) of Nuclear Fusion cycles are controllable.


Streamlined Life Cycle Analysis (SLCA) Highlights[edit]

In comparing the Streamlined Life Cycle Analysis (SLCA) of the 3 alternatives, it is obvious that Coal-Based Power Generation falls behind both In-Lake Wind Power and Nuclear Fusion power in its total matrix score. This is expected since the use of coal causes high emissions (Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) , CO2, SO2) and resource depletion (Coal Mining) especially in the Primary Process Operation. Comparing Nuclear Fusion Power and In-Lake Wind Power reveals that Wind Turbines are more environmentally friendly than Fusion Power Plants especially in Power Generation (Primary Process Operation) and End of Life. However, SLCA scoring is based on personal judgement and a final decision on whether Nuclear Fusion or In-Lake Wind Power Generation is more environmentally friendly can not be made with such a insignificant score difference. Therefore, Streamlined Life Cycle Analysis just implies that Coal-Based Power Generation has higher environmental impacts than the other two alternatives.

Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Analysis Highlights[edit]

Global Warming Potential in every Life Cycle Stage of Power Generation
Energy Use in every Life Cycle Stage of Power Generation
Conventional Air Pollutants in every Life Cycle Stage of Power Generation
Total Air Releases and Transfers in every Life Cycle Stage of Power Generation

Coal[edit]

Referring to [17] and [18] to acquire figures pertaining to Global Warming Potential per LC stage, it is obvious that the Use phase, during which combustion of coal produces some 11.9 million mMTCO2E, of which 35 million, is the most environmentally-impacting, whereas the Process implementation and Decommissioning phases have minimal impact since they occur once in the plant’s lifetime (maintenance and retrofitting part of Use phase). As well, referring to the EIOLCA, almost 5.5 mMTCO2E of GWP are associated with the resource provisioning phase, a result of coal and ore-mining equipment emissions and transportation costs.

For conventional air pollutants, again the Use phase has the largest environmental impact owing to the combustion of coal as well as auxiliary emissions attached to facility operations. Second, with almost 50,000 mt of air pollutants, is resource provisioning in which emissions are associated with providing energy for transportation and other vigorous mining activities. It should be noted that due to the inefficiency of coal, tonnes of it have to be extracted [19] and therefore a lot of pollution is involved in extracting it, along with concrete-making process and iron extraction and processing. In all, based on the EIOLCA figures, a 500MW plant releases, during its lifetime, an average of 1.99 kg/kW-hr of CO2, 0.00142 of kg /kW-hr of CH4, 0.00124 kg/kW-hr of CO, 0.00369 kg/kW-hr of SO2, 0.00652 kg/KW-hr NOX. Energy follows a similar pattern due to the close correlation between the two.

Looking at total releases & transfers, which encompass air, water, land, and underground releases of toxics, predictably, we find that resource provisioning results in the most toxic releases (11,900,000 kg). This is consistent with studies EPA TRI data [20]. Releases from process implementation are a direct consequence of coal processing and wastes incurred during construction such as lubricants used in machinery (also in resource provisioning [21]. As with the prior analytical parameters, the Use phase has massive releases attached to it including flue gas, ash (which is recycled) and residuals which have a negative impact on the environment such as wastewater.

In-Lake Wind Power EIOLCA [edit]

The EIOLCA model, calculated through capital and annual costs over a 20 year lifespan, provides a wide range of data which quantifies the environmental impacts of a 500MW offshore power plant [22]. In order to allow easier comparison, all sectors were then broken down into the following umbrella sectors: pre-manufacturing, manufacturing, transportation and operation.


EIOLCA Model for Offshore Windfarm

WindEIOLCA.JPG


Minimal economic activity is present in the transportation life stage of the model. The bulk of the transportation costs occur up-to and including the assembly of the wind turbines which represents only a small portion of the life cycle. Once the turbines become operational, the power produced is sent through power lines; this accounts for negligible values of costs and emissions.

The largest areas of economic activity and energy use, at $73 M and 7200 TJ respectively, occur in the operation stage of the wind farm. Although there are high capital costs in a project of this size, over 20 years, the costs associated with operation and maintenance, as well as administration and engineering, outweigh the other life stages present in the model. In contrast with the previous statement, the operation life stage displays the lowest Global Warming Potential (GWP) of all sectors with a value of 530 MTCO2E. This can be accredited to the fact that there are no greenhouse gas emissions during the power generation of the wind farm. This demonstrates the great advantage of wind energy as it is very environmentally friendly during operation.

EIOLCA: Economic Activity per Life Stage of Wind Farm
EIOLCA: Global Warming Potential Output of Wind Farm

Pre-manufacturing of the offshore wind farm is determined to be the largest contributor of greenhouse gases at 26524 MTCO2E. This can primarily be accounted for by the mining and refining of virgin materials required in the manufacturing of the turbines, foundations, submarine cables and transformers.


The trends displayed in the total air, water, land and underground releases act similar to those seen when considering sulphur dioxide (SO2) emissions. Pre-manufacturing and manufacturing stages generate relatively large values while the transportation and use life operation account for very little. This is again caused by the fact that the gathering and production of the many metals, mainly steel, have a high environmental impact, especially when considering the clean energy source of a wind turbine.

Nuclear Fusion Reactor EIOLCA [edit]

In order to complete an EIOLCA analysis for the Nuclear Fusion Reactor, two separate EIOLCA analyses were combined into one custom EIOLCA for more accurate results. The first comprises of the input-output figures for the construction of the reactor, while the second is for the operation of the reactor.

• Construction cost per year = $273.25 million/ year [23]

• Annual operating cost = $308 million/ year


EIOLCA Output for a Nuclear Fusion Reactor


Economic Input for Life Stages of Fusion Reactor
GWP Output for each Life Stage of Fusion Reactor

In analysing the outcome of the EIOLCA, several conclusions can be made regarding the environmental impacts of constructing and operating a nuclear fusion reactor. As stated earlier, one of the main advantages of the nuclear fusion reactor is the lack of carbon emissions that are involved in older technologies such as coal power plants.

The above data suggests that the majority of GWP emissions are involved in the premanufacturing stage of the reactor’s life-cycle. As expected, GWP emissions related to nuclear fusion are unrelated to the actual operation of the reactor. In constructing the reactor, several metallic alloys require processing – thus contributing to the overall GWP emissions during the reactor’s lifetime. The premanufacturing of a fusion reactor requires heavy duty processing of thermal materials with very precise specifications, thus calling for substantial amount of energy input. The EIOLCA output indicates that all GWP emissions during the operation of the reactor are due to secondary actions which occur during normal operation of the plant. For example, telecommunications involved in normal operations contributes to more GWP emissions than the reactor’s operation itself. This places the environmental sustainability of such technology in good perspective.

Comparing the SLCA and EIOLCA for the ITER

The EIOLCA and SLCA go hand-in-hand when analysing the environmental impact of any product or process. The preceding custom EIOLCA indicated that the GWP emissions associated with constructing and operating the ITER fusion reactor are mainly due to the premanufacturing processes involved with the reactor. The SLCA is in agreement with the EIOLCA in this sense. Of the 5 life stages, resource provisioning and end-of-life are shown to have the lowest total ratings, again, due to reasons explained in the EIOLCA section.

Although there is some agreement between the two analysis methods, it must be noted that the EIOLCA, in its very nature, gives a very broad definition of the problematic areas among the product or process. For example, the EIOLCA of a power generating station is not made specific to a fusion reactor, and is therefore generalized among other technologies such as coal, wind, nuclear fission, and so on. Therefore, unless the EIOLCA is quite specifically hybridized, the outcome is meaningless when used to compare and contrast to other technologies.

Cost Analysis[edit]

Coal[edit]

Table showing the environmental impact costs of a PC plant

The cost analysis for the 500MW PC plant was based upon a 20-year lifespan and assumes that the life cycle begins with mining for the coal and raw materials used in the construction of the plant, specifically steel and concrete, to the decommissioning of the plant

As can be observed from the figures above, the resource provisioning phase is the most economically-demanding since coal-fired plants require tremendous amounts of coal, steam, water in order to build and run the plant. The other substantially costly phase in the life cycle is the process implementation, which even though involved mostly one-time costs, is particularly important because it involves the purchase and installation costs of very expensive equipment such as the boiler, turbines and other infrastructure. [24]

In order to quantify environmental impact of coal-based power generation, an engineering consulting firm DDS Management, along with the Ontario Ministry of Energy co-authored an exhaustive study based on hospital data and air quality measurements in which they compared economically the environmental impact of a traditional PC plant with two alternatives: The same plant with stringent controls and a Nuclear Fission plant. The findings of the study are summarized in the table on the right.[25]

It is obvious that, due to the deleterious impact of unmitigated flue gas from coal combustion, the traditional PC plant incurs a heavier environmental cost than the alternatives.

In-Lake Wind Power Cost Analysis[edit]

Capital Cost Breakdown


The following cost analysis is in CDN for a 500MW offshore wind farm over a 20 year useful life consisting of 139 turbines, each producing 3.6MW. The wind farm is located 20km offshore with a 30km onshore distance to the nearest high voltage substation where it is connected to the existing power grid [26] [27]

Major Cost Breakdown

WindCostTable.JPG


Capital costs of the project are estimated to be $1,144 M. The largest capital cost of this project, at a value of $ 632 M, is the cost of the wind turbines themselves. Construction of the foundations for the offshore turbines, offshore transformers and other onshore facilities is about $201 M; power grid connection cost totals to $224 M. On the lower end are the internal electric grid and offshore transformer station at $62 M and $25 M respectively.


The annual operating costs of the project are estimated to be $100 M. Engineering and Administration accounts for 50% of the total annual cost while the other $50 M is split evenly between Operation & Maintenance and Miscellaneous fees. Decommissioning of the entire wind farm after the 20 year lifespan is estimated to be a total of $30 M or about $220,000 per turbine.

Nuclear Fusion Reactor Cost Analysis [edit]

The benefits of environmental sustainability often come at a price. The many benefits of a nuclear fusion reactor may often be overlooked by the hefty price tag that comes along with it. In comparison with other power-generating technologies, the ITER reactor’s costs seem to be overwhelming. The following is a detailed cost breakdown of the ITER reactor and is based on a 500MW output power.

• The total construction cost of the ITER was estimated at $5.465 billion [28] [29]

• Over a 9 year period, total costs to construct the reactor – including direct construction and labour costs – was estimated at about $607 million/ year


The annual operating cost was estimated to at $308 million/ year, with the following breakdown:

• Personnel costs: 32%

• Energy and tritium fuel costs: 20%

• Capital improvements, materials, spare parts, and waste management: 48%

• Decommissioning of the ITER was estimated to cost $665 million


The following pie chart shows a detailed breakdown of the construction costs for the ITER reactor:


Cost Breakdown of ITER


It is quite evident that the costs associated with the ITER are significant compared to other power-generation technologies and industries in general. For the Province of Ontario to choose an appropriate technology for power generation, a delicate analysis should be done to compare the costs associated with the environmental benefits of such a state-of-the-art technology.

Societal Analysis[edit]

Coal[edit]

A study conducted by the Ontario Ministry of Energy has found that Canadians are slightly ambivalent with regards to coal power [30], with the opinion tilted mostly against the use of coal to generate electricity. Frequently, grassroots activists with organizations such as Greenpeace will attempt to disrupt coal shipments orrally in front of power plants in order to draw attention to their cause. [31][32].

Greenpeace Activists Protest in front of Power Plant

The issue of public opinion was brought to public attention following Ontario’s decision to phase out coal by 2012. On the one hand, environmentalists claimed a victory predicated on the grounds that their efforts spurred the public to pressure government officials to take actions against what they saw dated and economically unfriendly infrastructure [33]. “A poll of Ontario voters conducted last month found concerns about pollution and global warming trumped all other issues, including health care.” [34]. Specifically, “69 per cent question using coal to generate electricity, because the process still causes pollution.”

And 89% supported initiatives to use renewable energy sources. [35]. On the other hand, a Pollara poll taken in 2007 found that 80 percent of Ontarians find that nuclear energy is a reliable source of power; 68 percent believe it is environmentally clean; “65 percent that it is extremely safe; and, 62 percent that it does not emit greenhouse gases. However, 64 percent of Ontarians feel they are more likely to support nuclear power knowing that the Canadian nuclear industry is based in Ontario and that the industry provides jobs for thousands of people in the province, and 56% support the use of ‘clean coal’ technologies” [36] such as Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC), which turns coal into gas (called syngas), and then strips the raw coal from impurities and thus resulting in fewer emissions.

In urban areas such as Toronto, where smog is a great inconvenience, people are more likely to be against the use of coal for power generation [34]. In rural areas, where the coal industry has a huge economic impact, communities have tried to fight back and contested coal plant closured in courts [37]. Further, in some areas, such as Atikokan in Thunder Bay, coal mines and power plants have become an integral part of the community, much like the town church or school, and inhabitants have taken steps to try and save their local plant [38].

In-Lake Wind Power Societal Analysis [edit]

  • Visual and Sound Pollution

These are the most identifiable social impacts that offshore wind farms induce. The idea of having large steel wind turbines clustered in the city’s lake can be unsettling because it will be disturbing one of few natural occurring views left to enjoy. Turbines also create large amounts of noise during power generation. These sounds have the potential of polluting the areas close to the shore.

  • Biological

The biological impact that offshore wind farms have on birds is considered the most important environmental. The main concerns regarding birds include overthrowing birds from their natural feeding routs and potential collisions with the turbines or construction equipment during feeding or migration [39]. Not only does noise and vibration during operation and construction affect humans, it is also a concern to birds, sea mammals and fish. It can encourage the ousting of birds as well as loss in habitat for sea mammals and fish. These biological factors have an impact on the social view of offshore wind turbines and their place in Ontario [40].

Duck covered in oil.
  • Collisions

Ship collision with a turbine is also an important social impact which must be considered. This must be done in order to minimize accidents and unwanted losses. There are many risks when considering the possibilities of ship collisions with the wind farm. The wind turbines themselves, as well as the ships, can become damaged due to a crash and passengers may face serious injury or death. The project may also suffer losses in energy production and initial investments, and well and environmental damages caused by the possibilities of toxic chemical spills [41].

  • Conflict of Interest

This may occur with: existing ship lanes, cable lines, pipelines and other industries such as fishing and mining. Even radar and radio signals have be directly disturbed by the presence of offshore wind farms. Radar can produce false echoes due to the turning of the blades which may then be transmitted to an aircraft causing confusion and a possible threat. Disturbances in radio signals are due to reflections off the tower which diminishes the radio signal; this is also a potential threat for a pilot [42].

Nuclear Fusion Reactor Societal Analysis [edit]

The research into Nuclear Fusion has had many societal benefits, thus giving reason and motivation for the further advancement of this technology. A number of technological spin-offs have occurred due to fusion research, including Medical imaging technologies and new expertise in superconductors, remote handling, cryogenics, and surface hardening/coating [43]. With the addition of jobs created and knowledge gained by this technology, our society is left with a strengthened economy and brighter minds for future innovation.

With the recent public discourse on nuclear proliferation, a fusion reactor would put to rest the public’s concerns regarding possible terrorist attacks in a fission reactor [44] This reassurance creates a significantly positive societal impact. The effect of putting to rest an entire population’s concern of the well beings of their families is of immeasurable value. This must be a major consideration in analysing the pros and cons of different power generating technologies for the Province of Ontario.

See Also[edit]

Design for the Environment

Fossil-fuel power plant

Electric Power Industry 2007: Year in Review

Natural nuclear fission reactor

Wind Power

References[edit]

  1. Sector Sustainability Tables (Government of Canada), “Economic Scan of Canada's Energy Sector," [Online document], 2007, [cited 2009 March 20], Available http://www.tdds.ca/D3630F3C-AF6E-4FC1-A3FF-224A5CF9C2DD/economic-intro-e.pdf
  2. Hamilton, Tyler, “Liberals Target 2014 to Close Coal Plants,” Toronto Star, 13 Jul. 2007 http://www.thestar.com/article/235548
  3. Othan Kural et al., Coal: Resources, Properties, Utilization, Pollution, Istanbul, Turkey: 1994.
  4. 4.0 4.1 4.2 Othan Kural et al., Coal: Resources, Properties, Utilization, Pollution, Istanbul, Turkey: 1994.
  5. Sector Sustainability Tables (Government of Canada), “Economic Scan of Canada's Energy Sector," [Online document], 2007, [cited 2009 March 20], Available http://www.tdds.ca/D3630F3C-AF6E-4FC1-A3FF-224A5CF9C2DD/economic-intro-e.pdf
  6. “Nanticoke Generating Station,” Ontario Power Generation, brochure available: http://www.opg.com/power/fossil/Nanticoke%202%20pg%20Final%20.pdf
  7. Robert H. Shannon, Handbook of Coal-Based Electric Power Generation, New Jersey, United States: Noyes Publications, 1984.
  8. Robert H. Shannon, Handbook of Coal-Based Electric Power Generation, New Jersey, United States: Noyes Publications, 1984
  9. “Important Facts of Canada’s Natural Resources,” Natural Resources Canada, 2000 http://dsp-psd.communication.gc.ca/Collection/M2-6-1999E.pdf
  10. McCarthy, John, “Progress and its Sustainability,” September 2000 http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
  11. Kerr, Richard, "Is Peak Oil Almost Here?," March 13, 2009 http://www.enn.com/business/commentary/39448
  12. “Canada-wide standards for mercury emissions from coal-fired Electric Power Generation,” Canadian Council of Ministries of the Environment, October 2006, pp. 21
  13. “Canada-wide standards for mercury emissions from coal-fired Electric Power Generation,” Canadian Council of Ministries of the Environment, October 2006, pp. 21
  14. "Make coal part of our power mix," Coal Association of Canada, http://www.coal.ca/content/index.php?option=com_jd-wp&Itemid=36
  15. Dan Ancona and Jim McVeigh, Wind Turbine - Materials and Manufacturing, Princeton Energy Resources International, LLC, 2001.
  16. How Stuff Works, “How Nuclear Fusion Reactors Work.” [Online]. Available: http://www.howstuffworks.com/fusion-reactor.htm
  17. Odeh, Cockerill, “Life Cycle Analysis of UK Coal Fired Power Plants,” Energy Conversion and Management, Volume 49, Issue 2, Feb. 2008, pp. 218-220
  18. Sampattagul, “Simplified LCA for a Sustainable Future,” MIE LCA Group http://dome.eng.cmu.ac.th/~thermalsystem/ThLCAWS2003/paper/sate.pdf
  19. Robert H. Shannon, Handbook of Coal-Based Electric Power Generation, New Jersey, United States: Noyes Publications, 1984.
  20. Dale Simbeck, “CO2 MITIGATION ECONOMICS FOR EXISTING COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS,” Presented at the U.S. Dept. of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), May 14 2001, Available through UTL
  21. “U.S. EPA Toxics Release Inventory Reporting Year 2007 Public Data Release,” Untitled States Environmental Protection Agency, Feb, 2008 http://www.epa.gov/tri/tridata/tri07/pdr/key_findings_v12a.pdf
  22. Fritz Santjer, Gerhard Gerdes, Peter Christiansen & David Milborrow, Wind Turbine Grid Connection and Interaction, Deutsches Windenergie, Tech-wise A/S & DM Energy United Kingdom, 2001.
  23. A. McLean, “The ITER Reactor and its Role in the Development of a Fusion Power Plant,” University of Toronto, Institute for Aerospace Studies and Canadian Nuclear Society. 2000.
  24. Delene et al., “An Assessment of the Economics of Future Electric Power Generation Options and the Implications for Fusion,” Prepared by the OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY, September 1999
  25. DSS Management Consultants Inc. & RWDI Air Inc., " Cost Benefit Analysis: Replacing Ontario’s Coal-Fired Electricity Generation,"Ontario Ministry of the Environment, April 2005, pp. 92.
  26. Fritz Santjer, Gerhard Gerdes, Peter Christiansen & David Milborrow, Wind Turbine Grid Connection and Interaction, Deutsches Windenergie, Tech-wise A/S & DM Energy United Kingdom, 2001.
  27. Helimax Energy Inc. Analysis of Future Offshore Wind Farm Development in Ontario, Prepared for Ontario Power Authority, 2008.
  28. A. McLean, “The ITER Reactor and its Role in the Development of a Fusion Power Plant,” University of Toronto, Institute for Aerospace Studies and Canadian Nuclear Society. 2000.
  29. Department of Energy, “ITER Project Cost Estimate.” [Online]. Available: http://fire.pppl.gov/doe_iter_lehman.pdf
  30. Nuclear Energy Agency, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Projected costs of generating electricity from nuclear and coal-fired power stations for commissioning in 1995, Paris: OECD, 2005.
  31. "Activists arrested in coal plant protest," April 30, 2007, Activists arrested in coal plant protest
  32. "Misplaced Celebration as Ontario Energy Minister Opens Enbridge Wind Development," http://windconcernsontario.wordpress.com/2009/04/06/misplaced-celebration-as-ontario-energy-minister-opens-enbridge-ontario-wind-development/
  33. A. McLean, “The ITER Reactor and its Role in the Development of a Fusion Power Plant,” University of Toronto, Institute for Aerospace Studies and Canadian Nuclear Society. 2000.
  34. 34.0 34.1 “Canadians Shun Use of Coal,” Angus Reid Global Monitor, 13 October 2007 http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/canadians_shun_nuclear_energy_and_use_of_coal/
  35. Bennet et al., “Improving the Overall Environmental Performance of Existing Power Generating Facilities,” IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENERGY CONVERSION, VOL. 16, NO. 3, SEPTEMBER 2001
  36. Bennet et al., “Improving the Overall Environmental Performance of Existing Power Generating Facilities,” IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENERGY CONVERSION, VOL. 16, NO. 3, SEPTEMBER 2001
  37. Spicer, Jonathan, “Ontario Walks Tightrope Plan to End Coal Use,” Reuters, 9 August 2007 http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N08227013.htm
  38. Meadows, Bryan, “Town Acts to Save Plant,” Thunder Bay Chronicle-Journal - April 25, 2005 http://www.ontariotenants.ca/electricity/articles/2005/tbc05d25.phtml
  39. Offshore Wind Energy Europe [CA-OWEE], Environmental Impact Guide, 2008, [cited 2009 March 10], Available HTTP: http://www.offshorewindenergy.org
  40. The ABC of Alternative Energy Information, Wind Energy Disadvantages and Wind Power Advantages, 2007, [cited 2009 February 15], Available HTTP: http://www.abc-alternative-energy.de/wind-energy/disadvantages- windpower.html
  41. Offshore Wind Energy Europe [CA-OWEE], Environmental Impact Guide, 2008, [cited 2009 March 10], Available HTTP: http://www.offshorewindenergy.org
  42. Offshore Wind Energy Europe [CA-OWEE], Environmental Impact Guide, 2008, [cited 2009 March 10], Available HTTP: http://www.offshorewindenergy.org
  43. A. McLean, “The ITER Reactor and its Role in the Development of a Fusion Power Plant,” University of Toronto, Institute for Aerospace Studies and Canadian Nuclear Society. 2000.
  44. “Q&A: Nuclear Fusion Reactor,” BBC News [Online]. Available: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4627237.stm.