是否应该购买魁北克的电力

New Person

本站元老
注册
2003-08-26
消息
5,815
荣誉分数
1,348
声望点数
323
一谈到涨电费,就会有人提这个问题。 这有两篇观点相反的文章,各自站在自己的立场,都有一定的局限性,有兴趣的可以一读。
其实真正的问题应该是是否应该从外省(Quebec, Manitoba...)大量进口电力, 如20-30%安省的发电量, 否则不会对电费有多少影响。
 
最后编辑:
By: John Barrett Published on Wed Jul 23 2014
At first glance, the idea of bringing electricity from Quebec into Ontario makes sense. After all, Ontario’s electricity prices are rising; Quebec already exports vast quantities of electricity to the New England states.

However, the Ontario Clean Air Alliance (OCAA) and its Quebec ally, Equiterre need to do their homework before pressing this case much farther. Their argument to replace Ontario nuclear power with Quebec hydroelectric power ignores the value that nuclear power provides to the province. It also overlooks the realities of Ontario’s power system.

Ontario’s nuclear plants produce power safely and reliably every day around the clock. Refurbishing the Bruce and Darlington plants will extend their lives for decades, providing an economical, long-term supply of clean electricity for Ontario. Refurbishing 10 reactors also means Ontario will create thousands of jobs within the province.

See also:Ontario should import low-cost hydroelectric power from Quebec

The reality of an Ontario-Quebec power deal is that it will be purely commercial. Quebec is a very sharp and tough contractor for whom electric power is a rock-hard commercial business. There will not be any nation-building discounts or new Fathers of Confederation.

If you doubt this, consult the power authorities in Newfoundland and Labrador. In 1969, they signed a generation contract with Hydro-Québec that drove power prices steadily lower over 65 years. Even the onset of massive inflation – the general price level has jumped more than 500 per cent since 1969, according to the Bank of Canada – brought no upward adjustment in the price Newfoundland receives for its power.

The six New England states buy electricity from Hydro-Québec through their Independent System Operator (ISO-NE). Since the start of this year, wholesale power contracts for this New England grid have averaged $100 per megawatt-hour – roughly a dime per kilowatt-hour. OCAA and Equiterre suggest that Hydro-Québec would sell power to Ontario at 5.7 cents per kilowatt-hour. Why should Hydro-Québec accept that price when it can get almost twice as much from New England?

Even if Hydro-Québec cut a special deal for Ontario, the needed infrastructure does not exist. Ontario built its electrical grid with self-sufficiency in mind, and its ability to meet electrical demand in Toronto depends on the wires that would carry power from Quebec.

Imagine that Ontario imported all the electricity from Quebec that it could. Interprovincial connections can carry 2,545 MW, or about 70 per cent of the capacity of the Darlington nuclear generating station. But once it crossed the provincial border, Quebec’s electricity would travel through Ottawa on power lines that more resemble a one-lane cart path than a four-lane highway. Upgrading these lines would cost hundreds of millions of dollars, and raise power bills accordingly.

Even if Ontario upgraded its lines, however, there remains the issue of Quebec’s export reliability. Hydro-Québec would not meet Ontario’s needs year-round.

In a May 22 letter to Ontario’s system operator, Hydro-Québec writes, “commitment periods need to take seasonal diversity into account.” Quebecers heat with electricity, making winter the season of peak power demand. Feeling a capacity squeeze last winter, and the winter before, Hydro-Québec asked its customers to turn down their thermostats. Even now, Hydro-Québec is issuing contracts to buy power for the next four winters. This hardly sounds like a reliable, year-round power supplier.

What can we learn from these realities? Do the homework, and don’t jump at too-good-to-be-true options.

There are reasons Ontario built its power system the way it did. It sought energy security and self-sufficiency. Ontario could have built a grid that relied on Quebec imports. Instead, it chose nuclear. Along the way, it gained a nuclear industry that has created thousands of jobs in Ontario.

Nuclear-generated electricity was the right choice for Ontario decades ago. It remains the right choice today.
 
By: Jack Gibbons Published on Sun Jul 20 2014
Their highly radioactive waste will linger forever, but the elderly nuclear reactors that provide half of Ontario’s electricity will soon reach the end of their lives. And the task of rebuilding them, currently in the planning stages, will almost certainly burden the fiscally crippled province with even more debt while electricity prices maintain their steeply upward trajectory for decades to come.

As an alternative, letting the oldest reactors die and replacing their output with clean, renewable water power from Quebec could save Ontario $600 million a year in foregone nuclear costs — beginning as soon as the two neighbours decide to end the electricity separatism that has traditionally stood in the way of such a logical and mutually beneficial hookup.

Quebec is the fourth-largest producer of hydroelectric power in the world and its electricity rates are among the lowest in North America. Its residential rates are 45 per cent lower than ours and its industrial rates are 55 per cent lower. In recent years, the province has produced far more cheap, clean electricity than it can use itself.

Meanwhile, its next-door neighbour, Ontario, is struggling with some of the highest power costs in the country and facing a minimum $13-billion bill to refurbish the Darlington nuclear reactors. There is already enough transmission capacity linking the two provinces to replace 97 per cent of the power currently produced by Darlington — and a tremendous opportunity to strike a deal that would provide huge economic benefits for both provinces.

Hydro Quebec currently exports power to New England at rates as low as three cents per kilowatt-hour. Planners for the Darlington refurbishment estimate that the project will result in power at a cost of 8.3 cents per kwh. The Ontario Clean Air Alliance calculates that a long-term contract for Quebec water power priced in the middle of that range — 5.7 cents per kWh — will save Ontario $600 million a year over the nuclear alternative.

Those savings assume the Darlington rebuild will be completed on time and on budget — something that has never happened in the history of the Canadian nuclear industry. On average, nuclear projects have gone 2.5 times over budget. The first phase of Darlington was 4.5 times over budget. So the actual savings of replacing Darlington’s inflexible and dangerous nuclear power with clean and reliable water power is likely to be in excess of a billion dollars a year.

Low-cost water power from Quebec is a bargain we simply can’t afford to refuse — especially in light of the Wynne government’s major spending commitments, which have already caused Moody’s credit rating agency to issue a warning on Ontario’s debt. When combined with energy conservation and made-in-Ontario green energy, it can quickly move us to a 100 per cent renewable energy grid.

It’s no mystery why Ontario has never before signed a long-term contract to import water power from Quebec: successive Ontario governments have for decades clung to a misguided industrial strategy that was supposed to provide Ontario with nuclear power “too cheap to meter” while creating jobs from the export of Candu reactors. Today, it is clear that nuclear energy is extremely expensive — the reason our rates are so high — and the Candu reactor is obsolete. There hasn’t been an export sale in decades.

In Ontario, a very powerful nuclear special-interest lobby has promoted electricity separatism because it knows nuclear can’t compete with low-cost water power from Quebec. The latter is a superior product by every metric.

Given a choice, virtually everyone in Ontario who isn’t part of the nuclear industry says they prefer renewable energy and conservation over nuclear power. So when renewable energy is also the lowest-cost option, the choice is a no-brainer.

We already import our natural gas and uranium from western Canada, so why can’t we import clean, low-cost water power from our next-door neighbour? It’s just common sense. It’s good for the economy, it’s good for the environment and it’s good for Canada.

As for those Ontarians currently working in the nuclear industry, they needn’t fear as the failed strategy of the past is abandoned. Their colleagues in the coal plants that were phased out for equally valid reasons had no complaints. Ontario Power Generation has many sins, but mistreating its employees is not one of them.

Jack Gibbons is chair of the Ontario Clean Air Alliance.
 
除去安省就业和政治因素不谈,至少有两个方面的因素起着关键作用: 电能经济和电网安全稳定运行。
 
条块分割,地方保护主义严重;加拿大的自由经济,只适用于私人企业
 
电能经济问题:
首先是邻省能以什么样的电价卖电给安省? 按照加拿大各省之间的经济关系,不指望能以邻省省内电价,应该是按照市场电价比较符合实际。其次是将邻省电力输送到安省的负荷中心(如大多伦多地区),要增加多少输电设备(如输电线,变电站等), 以及长距离输电造成的电力损耗。这些成本都会反映到电费中去。
 
以最近几年关闭的 Nanticoke Generating Station 为例(该电厂是北美最大的燃煤电厂, 装机容量400万千瓦), 如果用Quebec 水电来取代, 以一条50万千伏线路输送100千瓦电力估算,需要4条50万千伏线路,按照N+1 的可靠性原则,则需要5条50万千伏线路.从Quebec边界到Niagara falls地区就有5-6百公里。再加上Quebec边界到水电发电中心的数百公里, 输电设备的成本就非常可观。如果从Manitoba输入电力,则输电距离更长。
 
最后编辑:
要谈电网安全稳定运行,就不能不先谈电网结构和电网正常运行。

现代电网结构:
现代电网一般是一个由数百台发电机和成千上万负荷中心(由负荷的地理位置决定)通过输电设备组成的,按相同频率/速度,同步运行的系统。按大系统理论来看,这是一个典型的大系统。
安省电网就是北美东部电网(不知是不是整个北美电网)的一部分。
现代电网虽然很大,但由于历史,负荷与电源的连接等原因,从网络联接的紧密程度和电力调度权限来看,可以分为若干相互关联子系统。安省电网就是一个子系统。
在整个系统中,子系统和子系统之间的联接比较松散(如安省和邻省之间)。而子系统内部,负荷中心群间的联接比较紧密(如大多地区),而边缘地区则联接比较松散(如渥太华)。

打一个不是非常准确,但又能让大多数有理工背景的人能够理解的比方,现代电网就象一个数百匹马(发电机)和成千上万辆车(负荷中心)通过弹性(如弹簧)联接, 按相同速度向前运行的车阵. 要控制这一车阵同步运行 并非易事。为何是弹性联接而不是刚性联接? 在电网异常运行中将有解释。

现代电网还是一个典型的分层控制系统。电网可分为输电网络和配电网络。输电网络用于将电力从发电中心送到用电中心,而配电网络则将电力分配到千家万户。

电力调度权限也是分层的。如渥太华只有配电网络的调度权,而Hydro One 就有输电网络的调度权. 电力调度是电网运行的关键。而电力调度权限是这一关键的体现。以中国为例,在三峡电站建成,国电调度中心成立前,有华东电网,华中电网,华北电网,东北电网等几大电网。在华东电网中,虽然有安徽省调,江苏省调,浙江省调,但华东总调直接控制着几大主力电厂和主要输电网络的电力调度权。虽然这些电厂,主要输电网络都在安徽,浙江等地。加拿大的情况则不同,各省电网各自独立调度,并没有一个省以上的地区或联邦级的调度中心。各省电网和美国电网间只有协议供电,是一种比较松散的子系统间的连接。
 
最后编辑:
电网结构和用户供电可靠性:
根据对供电可靠性的要求,用户可分为三类。 其中一类用户对供电可靠性要求最高, 如石化,冶金等。中断供电对这类用户是灾难性的,会造成高炉报废,石化爆炸等严重事故。 而中断供电对三类用户是可以接受的。
对一类用户供电往往采取近距离多电源供电,以保证在某些电源或输电线故障时还能保证不中断供电。如,大连二电厂给只有一墙之隔的大连化工厂供电就采用了4台发电机和13条输电线供电。对一类用户供电, 采取长距离少电源供电是不可接受的。
所以就供电可靠性而言,在负荷中心必须要有一定的发电中心。
 
电网的正常运行:
电网在没有故障时的任务就是将发电中心产生的电力可靠地,经济地送到千家万户。
大家知道,目前电能还没有大规模储存的方法(除去某些地方使用的抽水蓄能电站外)。所以电力生产的特点是产供销瞬时平衡。如果生产的电力多于消耗的电力,电网频率就会升高,就必须减少生产的电力。反之,电网频率就会降低,就必须增加生产的电力或减少消耗的电力(限制用电)。

由于千家万户用电量的不确定性,如何能做到电力供需的瞬时平衡呢? 解决之道是负荷预报。负荷预报分为长期预报和短期预报。长期预报是根据历史数据和将来负荷发展的趋势进行预报,不要求非常准确,主要为电网规划提供依据,如应该在何处建多大的的电厂,怎样将电力接入电网等。短期预报要求相对准确,主要为电网日常调度提供依据。负荷预报是一门专门的领域,是比较困难的领域.

那么电网是如何将电力按照用户的用电的多少分配给用户的呢? 是否能象供水系统那样,可以调节每个管道的流量大小那样调节每条输/配电线上的电力呢? 答案是否定的(除了极少数按协议供电的线路为)。电网能够进行的调整只是发电机的出力大小。再以马车阵为例,相当于我们并不能调整马与车和车与车之间连接弹簧受力的大小,只能调整马的出力大小, 以达到整个马车阵的能量平衡。以及各个连接弹簧受力在容许的范围内。
 
最后编辑:
正常运行时电力调度的功能:
电力调度的功能是按照短期预报, 按排发电/输电检修,按排发电机出力, 将发电中心产生的电力可靠地,经济地送到千家万户。而达到这一功能的手段是计算机数字仿真(称为电网潮流计算, 听起来象水呵)。

电网潮流计算的数学基础是线性方程组。由于每个节点的电压和每条线路的电流都是要计算的量,计算一次就有很大的计算量。而且短期预报一般按小时分段,所以每小时都要有一次计算结果。计算结果除了要检查在当前电网机构下,每个节点的电压和每条线路的电流都不能超过容许范围,还要检查在某个区域内如果有一个设备故障时电压电流不能超过容许范围。最后还要检查电力的经济性,即电网损耗最小,发电成本最小(不同发电类型的成本是不同的)。

由于电网负荷在一年中的每个月都有所不同,在每一天中的不同时间段都有所不同(高峰负荷和低谷负荷),而且不同类型的发电厂调整出力的能力也不同,所以电网中某些发电厂(如核电厂,大型火电厂)承担电网的基本负荷(变化不大的负荷),而另一些发电厂(如水电厂)承担电网的高峰负荷。再由于电网短期预报的不准确性,还需要一些发电厂经过频率自动控制设备承担电网的调频任务(频率高就必须减少出力,反之则增加出力)。 这样,电力产供销瞬平衡才能得以实现。

安省电网主要由核电厂,大型火电厂供电,水电比重较小。调峰调频能力相对较弱。听说安省将电力低价卖给美国。如果这种卖电发生在低谷期间,一点也不奇怪。低价卖给美国也可能好过让核电厂,大型火电厂在低负荷状态下运行。还有,象安省这样调峰调频能力相对较弱的电网,负荷削峰填谷也是很重要的措施。如按装智能电表和远程控制的温度控制器(前段时间有免费的),前者用钱强制用户在高峰时少用电,在低谷时多用电, 后者则在高峰时直接减少空调用电。
 
最后编辑:
除了电网的正常运行状态外, 电网安全稳定运行还包括电网在故障状态下的运行:

电网故障是不可避免的, 但不同故障对电网的影响是不同的。最轻微的故障是瞬时性故障,如雷击输电线。 这种故障有时不会中断用户供电,有时造成短暂中断用户供电。如有时我们可以看到突然停电1-2秒钟(这是一种称为自动重合闸的装置在切除瞬时故障后自动重合开关恢复供电)。而最严重的故障是由多重故障或由电网振荡造成的电网大面积停电, 这种故障有时会造成中断用户供电达数天之久。

电网故障时的首要任务是仅仅切除故障元件,而将故障对电网的影响降低到最小。如我们家里配电箱有很多保险或断路开关,厨房出了故障不会影响到卧室。这种检测并切除故障的装置称为继电保护。继电保护的性能对于电网故障状态下的运行起着关键的作用。

除了继电保护外,电网结构对于电网故障状态下的运行起也着重要作用。比如, 如果有两条重载全负荷运行的输电线从魁省到安省,如果其中一条输电线因故障被切除,1)由于没有备用输电线,另一条输电线完全有可能因过载而被切除; 2)即使有备用输电线或故障是瞬时性故障,清除故障后还能继续输电,但由于在故障期间,供电端由于能量过剩而加速,受电端由于能量不足而减速,两端失去同步而造成电网振荡,而在振荡中两端并不能输送电能。这两种情况都会造成电网的解裂(即分为两个或若干个子网)。再以马车阵为例, 前者相当于连接弹簧因受力过度而断裂,后者相当于连接弹簧处在伸长/缩短振荡状态而不能输送能量。
 
最后编辑:
电网解裂会如何?
一般`而言,电网解裂会分为两个或若干个子电网, 而子电网中的电能不再平衡。发电出力大于负荷的子电网的电能过剩,会造成发电机组超速,必需立即减少发电出力。发电出力少于负荷的子电网的电能不足,必需立即切除用户以减少负荷。 如果各个子电网中的电能不平衡不大, 发电出力能够快速减少(如水电机组),而且已事先有故障处理方案,多数情况下,能在数小时内恢复供电。但在少数情况下,如各个子电网中的电能不平衡很大, 发电出力不能够快速减少(如核电厂,大型火电厂,有的核电厂有能量释放系统,火电厂一般没有能量释放系统, 采取的方法是高压蒸汽对天排放,锅炉紧急灭火)等,恢复全部供电可能需要数天。Northeast blackout of 2003 就是一个例子,大停电面积包括美国几个州和安省,最长停电时间是4-5天。

长距离重负荷送电容易造成电网解裂,就象马车阵中, 有一个子车阵用很长的一俩根弹簧连接另一个子车阵那样。

从楼下跟帖看来,此楼已经开始从技术楼歪成政治口水楼了。不过前面部分尚连续可读。还是电网结构将只和电网的动能经济和安全稳定运行有关, 进不进魁北克水电还是其他的电要由电网的动能经济和安全稳定运行来决定.。赶快回到原来的问题上来吧:

安省是否应该从外省(Quebec, Manitoba...)大量进口电力?

我想,如果认真读过此楼,至少可以从技术上知道,这个问题的答案绝对不是由某几个政客拍脑子可以决定的。

在以前大选的帖子里,曾和很多人讨论过电网问题。 但当时由于感到几句话说不清楚,故没有深入讨论。所以总感到欠大家一个较待,此帖子算是个补偿吧。

@ccc
@明的凡
@Anakin
@Crystal Liu
@urus
 
最后编辑:
安省电厂的发电量是魁省电厂的几分之一,而其CEO的年薪却是魁省CEO的几倍,楼主能解释一下原因吗?
 
安省电厂的发电量是魁省电厂的几分之一,而其CEO的年薪却是魁省CEO的几倍,楼主能解释一下原因吗?
安省人民有钱任性养得起!
 
后退
顶部