Integration of wind power into an electricity system using pumped storage: Economic challenges and stakeholder impacts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Province of Ontario has had an aggressive program of introducing wind electricity generation technologies into its generation supply mix. This, combined with the rigid baseload production by nuclear and hydro plants, has for 20 years created a surplus baseload electricity supply. Pumped hydro storage (PHS) is suggested as an economically viable technology for storing energy from non-dispatchable wind energy sources. An analytical framework has been developed to explore the feasibility of the PHS facility to manage the surplus supply of electricity and compare its cost performance with the alternative gas power plants. Two situations are analyzed. First, the PHS plant uses only surplus energy for the first 20 years of operation. Second, an additional 20 years of PHS usefulness is added by making investments in wind electricity generation to provide energy for pumping. Given the capital costs of building PHS in Ontario, the PHS expansion is not economically cost-effective for utilizing the projected off-peak surpluses. The economic analysis also illustrates that in the context of Ontario, the integration of PHS with wind power generation will have a negative impact on the Canadian economy in all circumstances. This loss is borne mainly by the electricity consumers of Ontario. Even considering the cost of CO2 emissions from a world perspective, this investment is not cost-effective. It would be much better socially from a world perspective and economically from Canada's perspective if the surplus baseload electricity from Ontario were given away free to the USA. It could then be used to reduce generation by natural gas plants in the USA, hence reducing CO2 emissions globally, without any incremental economic cost to Canada.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".