The following TVO segment on the show “The Agenda” with Steve Paikin discussed the potential for electricity conservation in Ontario.
I made the following main points: electricity development produces little employment and does so at high cost, cogeneration has attractive energy efficiency characteristics but is currently cost-effective for only a few industrial customers, and Denmark’s success with energy conservation is related to the fact that households there pay almost 4 times as much for power as we do in Ontario.
My positive message was to support investment in a “smart grid” capable of two way flows of information between customers and the power system. The grid is a provincial resource, Ontario has a track record as a successful innovator in grid development, and a smarter grid can provide valuable flexibility to accomodate electricity technologies of the future.
http://www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/theagenda/index.cfm?page_id=7&bpn=779614&ts=2009-09-15%2020:00:00.0
It was an interesting topic yet nothing was really discussed nor was anyone rebuffed. The Denmark example should have been called out considering they have yet to close a natural gas plant or make any significant reduction in Co2 emssions. Tom what do you think of the PWU idea on the investment in transmission priorities and how much investment in upgrading the grid does the GEA set aside?
http://www.abetterenergyplan.ca/the_plan_transmission.php
I agree with the PWU’s major points on transmission, although when they claim that “No major investments have been made in the province’s transmission infrastructure for decades” I think they exaggerate. Recent counter examples include the Bruce to Milton line now underway and the procurement of back-up for the troubled class of 750 MVA autotransformers. One specific region where the Ontario transmission system is particularly weak is the lack of redundancy for service into Toronto from the high voltage system.