Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated with Various Methods of Power Generation in Ontario
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH VARIOUS METHODS OF POWER GENERATION IN ONTARIO October 2016 Prepared For: Ontario Power Generation Inc. 700 University Avenue Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z5 6605 Hurontario Street , Suite 500, Mississauga, Ontario ▪ L5T 0A3 Tel: 905-364-7800 ▪ Fax: 905-364-7816 ▪ www.intrinsik.com DISCLAIMER Intrinsik Corp. (hereafter referred to as Intrinsik) provided this report to Ontario Power Generation Inc. (OPG) solely for the purpose stated in the report. Intrinsik does not accept any responsibility for the use of this report for any purpose other than as specifically intended by OPG. Intrinsik does not have, and does not accept, any responsibility or duty of care whether based in negligence or otherwise, in relation to the use of this report in whole or in part by any third party. Any alternate use, including that by a third party, or any reliance on or decision made based on this report, are the sole responsibility of the alternative user or third party. Intrinsik does not accept responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report. Intrinsik makes no representation, warranty or condition with respect to this report or the information contained herein other than that it has exercised reasonable skill, care and diligence in accordance with accepted practice and usual standards of thoroughness and competence for the profession of toxicology and environmental science to assess and evaluate information acquired during the preparation of this report. Any information or facts provided by others, and referred to or utilized in the preparation of this report, is believed to be accurate without any independent verification or confirmation by Intrinsik. This report is based upon and limited by circumstances and conditions stated herein, and upon information available at the time of the preparation of the report. Intrinsik has reserved all rights in this report, unless specifically agreed to otherwise in writing with OPG. GHG Emissions Associated with Various Methods of Power Generation in Ontario October 2016 Intrinsik Corp. – Project # 20-22285 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH VARIOUS METHODS OF POWER GENERATION IN ONTARIO EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Intrinsik Corp. (Intrinsik) has been retained by Ontario Power Generation Inc. (OPG) to compare greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with various methods of energy production in Ontario over the next 40 years. Along with technical and economic factors, environmental impacts are an important element to consider when establishing a system of mixed electricity generation. Utilizing both renewable and non-renewable resources with low-carbon impact that can provide a consistent and reliable supply of electricity will address Ontario’s energy requirements while minimizing impacts to the environment. The objective of the study was to provide an impartial, scientifically defensible evaluation of the GHG emissions associated with various types of energy production projected to be utilized in Ontario until 2055. This period represents the projected operating life span of the refurbished Darlington Nuclear Generating Station. The study focused exclusively on the estimated GHG emissions released to the Ontario environment as a result of the operations and maintenance of facilities producing electricity rather than a Lifecycle Assessment (LCA) that addresses all potential upstream and downstream activities. This approach is consistent with the emissions forecast provided by the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) as part of Ontario’s Long-Term Energy Plan. Numerous LCAs have characterized GHG emissions for various forms of energy production. For conventional facilities utilizing fossil fuels such as coal or natural gas, the majority of GHG emissions occur during the production of energy as fuel resources are consumed. For other methods of energy production, the mining and processing of resources, the production of equipment, or the construction of facilities may represent the most emission-intensive stages. The overall lifecycle GHG emissions for nuclear, wind and hydro are often found to be similar and slightly below those for solar, with emissions for each of these more than an order of magnitude lower than lifecycle emissions for natural gas (Figure E-1). GHG Emissions Associated with Various Methods of Power Generation in Ontario October 2016 Intrinsik Corp. – Project # 20-22285 Page i Figure E-1 Comparison of Lifecycle Emissions for Various Methods of Energy Production (Asthma Society of Canada and Bruce Power, 2014). Utilizing literature-based values, provincial databases of self-reported GHG emissions, and energy production estimates, resource-specific GHG emission rates per unit of electricity generated (i.e., gram of CO2 equivalents per kilowatt hour (g CO2e/kWh)) were estimated for nuclear, wind, natural gas, solar PV, and hydroelectric energy production in Ontario (Table E-1). Table E-1 Estimated Resource-Specific GHG Emission Rates for the Operation and Maintenance Stage Resource GHG Emissions per Energy Production (g CO2e/kWh) Hydroelectric 0 Nuclear 0.15 Wind 0.74 Solar 6.15 Natural Gas 525 Resource-specific GHG emission rates were then used to estimate the total amount of GHGs emitted to meet Ontario’s energy requirements for three (3) distinct scenarios: 1. Current energy production, with nuclear representing approximately 60% of Ontario’s energy requirements, until 2024 during a period of staggered refurbishments to the Darlington and Bruce Generating Stations. 2. Projected future scenario after 2024 with a reduction in nuclear capacity following the scheduled closure of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station and the completed refurbishment of the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station. Under this scenario it was assumed that the necessary capacity lost with the closure of the Pickering Station would be replaced by a combination of renewable sources (i.e., hydro, wind and solar PV) and natural gas. 3. Alternate projected future scenario after 2024 in the absence of the Darlington refurbishment resulting in a reduction in nuclear capacity associated with the closure of both the Pickering and Darlington Stations. Under this scenario it was assumed that the GHG Emissions Associated with Various Methods of Power Generation in Ontario October 2016 Intrinsik Corp. – Project # 20-22285 Page ii necessary capacity lost with the closure of the Pickering and Darlington Stations would be replaced by a combination of renewable sources (i.e., hydro, wind and solar PV) and natural gas. The loss of nuclear capacity with the closure of the Pickering Station after 2024 (Scenario 2), and the combined losses of capacity with the closure of both the Pickering and Darlington Stations in an alternate future scenario (Scenario 3), result in an increase in total GHG emissions to 16 and 26 MT CO2e in 2025, respectively, relative to the total GHG emissions of 12 MT CO2e in 2024 prior to the closure of these facilities and 7.2 MT CO2e under the current 2016 scenario (Figure E-1). Fluctuations in emissions in Scenarios 2 and 3 are largely attributed to planned refurbishments to the Bruce Station occurring until 2031. The total reduction in GHG emissions from 2024 to 2055 associated with the continued use of the Darlington Station following refurbishment is estimated to be 297 MT CO2e, with an average reduction of 9.6 MT CO2e per year. This is equivalent to removing approximately 2,000,000 cars from Ontario’s roads per year. A reduction of 9.6 MT CO2e per year also contributes to Ontario’s GHG emissions reduction targets under Ontario’s Climate Change Mitigation and Low- Carbon Economy Act, 2016, which calls for reductions from 1990 emissions levels (181.8 MT CO2e) of 15% in 2020, 37% in 2030, and 80% in 2050 (MOECC, 2016), representing reductions of 27, 67 and 145 MT CO2e, respectively. 30.00 25.00 20.00 15.00 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 10.00 GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) 5.00 0.00 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 Year Figure E-1 Projected Greenhouse Gas Emissions associated with Power Generation in Ontario (2016 to 2055) The emissions profile is driven almost exclusively by energy production from natural gas facilities for each of the three (3) scenarios. Although the contribution of natural gas to the total energy production ranges from 9 to 32%, it consistently represents the largest source of GHGs GHG Emissions Associated with Various Methods of Power Generation in Ontario October 2016 Intrinsik Corp. – Project # 20-22285 Page iii since the combustion of natural gas is the most emission-intensive operational process of each of the energy-producing resources. These significant increases in annual GHG emissions are anticipated even though an optimal scenario was assumed in which renewable resources such as wind, solar PV and hydro were able to increase their contribution to meet energy demands beyond the forecasted increase in production. Despite this assumption, a large portion of the capacity lost with the closure of the Darlington Station under Scenario 3 was assumed to be replaced by energy generated by natural gas facilities. Natural gas facilities were assumed to provide approximately 75% (or 20 TWh) of the total capacity lost under Scenario 3 from the closure of the Darlington Station in 2025 until 2036. It was assumed