From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: DSM for Ontario Hydro (was Re: Radioactivity and Superstition...)
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:27:53 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.151658.10571@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca> whitlock@dcss.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.160518.11287@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Oct5.152144.24524@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca> whitlock@dcss.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock) writes:
>>> [...]
>>>Not true, according to Ontario Hydro's experience.  Conservation and 
>>>efficiency were given top priority (ie. greater than supply) in its 
>>>recent 25-year Demand/Supply Plan (currently under government review),
>>>resulting in it being one of -- if not *the* -- most ambitious demand
>>>management plans in North America.  According to their cost estimates, 
>>>the demand management components are the most expensive, per MW, in the
>>>whole plan.  (Cost, obviously, was not given top priority either).
>>
>>Do you have any information or figures for this?  Do you know what
>>their DSM strategies were or what the expected cost per MW was?
>>The studies I have seen (by EPRI) have shown different results,
>>and have been verified by some experience in the US.  
>
>Using the estimates for the median growth case, the costs in 1989 million
>Cdn. dollars, taken from Ontario Hydro's original 25-year Demand/Supply 
>plan (its since been revised) are:
>
>Nuclear and Fossil (6.1 GW), incl. capital, OM&A, and fuel: 432/GW  
>
>Demand Management (5.6 GW), incl. load reduction and load shifting: 644/GW

The EPRI report provides figures in supplied energy ($/KWh), not capacity.
For example, they say that efficiency retrofits in industrial motor
drives (the category with the largest potential savings) could reclaim
capacity at $.025/kwh.  The claim is that for 100% penetration for the
retrofit, 10% of electricity energy use (in the US) can be saved.  Lower
levels of penetration would affect the 10% figure, but not the $.025/kwh
value.  Can Ontario Hydro supply nuclear or fossil
energy at that rate?  Also, are these costs up-front capital costs
only?  Does the nuclear and fossil category include maintenance, resource
supply, etc?  Such costs will be much smaller for DSM.  

For the example
mentioned above, industrial motor drives, it would be interesting to
try and compare the two sets of numbers.  First, I would assume that
retrieved capacity from industrial sources could be considered
baseload capacity, not peak.  Dividing $644/kw by $.025/kwh gives
2576 hours of operation, or just under 3 years at 100% operation.
Maybe others can tell me if this analysis is too simplistic, but
my speculation is that Ontario Hydro is not including operating
expenses in the above provided figures.  The comparison of initial
capital costs excluding major differences in operating costs is a
common problem in seeing the economic value of non-traditional
energy sources, such as efficiency and renewables.  Here in
Colorado, Public Service is _prevented by PUC regulation_ from looking
at long-term costs when evaluating renewables.

Of course, I don't even know what their specific DSM policies are.
The phone number provided is not connected for me in Colorado.  Do
you have a regular phone number or an address?
>
>You can get more info. by calling their public line at 1-800-263-9000, 
>although this might only apply to Ontario.      
>
>-- 
>Jeremy Whitlock                 "My thoughts are mine, not Mac's"
>Dept. Engineering Physics
>McMaster University
>Hamilton, Ontario, Canada  


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)