Groggy stated "Hydro is green, and its our cheapest source in Ontario at present". Which part did you LMOA at? That hydro is green? In my opinion it is. I am unsure how the self-appointed greenies distinguish that small hydro is green and big hydro is not. Is it because small hydro is cuter?? Or did you laugh at the part that hydroelectric is our cheapest source in Ontario. For power generated in Ontario, it is.
Ontario electricity price hike...again.
- Thread starter elmo
- Start date
Here's how too much green too fast is a problem. First, everyone already knows that per MW generated, wind and solar are staggeringly more expensive than hydro, fossil (gas/coal) and nuke. Next, everyone also already knows that capacity factors for solar and wind are stupidly low (i.e. no solar at night or cloudy days, no wind on calm days). But it gets worse. These generating sources are unpredictable on a minute to minute basis. Not so good when your supply must exactly meet demand second by second. Providing automatic generation control at other generating stations to compensate for this variability costs money. And it gets worse still. Operating reserves must be increased because of this unreliability. That costs money. And it gets worse. Not just any operating reserve is needed, but the most expensive type - spinning reserve. And it still gets worse. When misguided and vote hungry governments encouraged by misguided greenies shove too much unreliable "renewable" energy sources into the grid too fast and without proper planning, then unexpected things happen. In Germany, they are congratulating themselves on how much renewable energy they have brought on line. But behind the scenes, German utilities are quietly bringing back reliable coal generation. For certain operability reasons that I will not get into here, they are preferring coal over combined cycle gas plants. More green means more fossil to back it up. It is a simple truth quietly being proven out in Germany right now.
Ontario's energy network has been mismanaged to death for decades, under all 3 parties, and has always bled green, pissing away our money like a frat boy on St. Patrick's Day.
I'd love to get off the bloody grid and find a nice little wind/solar/natural gas system at a reasonable price.
I'd love to get off the bloody grid and find a nice little wind/solar/natural gas system at a reasonable price.
Correction: Land previously owned by OPG. For both projects the government directed OPG to sell/give away the land to the gas companies and in neither case is OPG a part owner. So in effect, the government just gave away a public asset. Is that factored into the costs of cancelling the gas plants?
So how is it that nobody is the least bit concerned or outraged over the losses predicted by the IESO over the term of the Samsung deal? A loss of 10 billion dollars over 20 years is significant especially when we've been told that hydro rates are set to double by 2016. Ontario has the highest electricity costs of any OECD jurisdiction, have we given up on getting out manufacturing base back? We are sheep, allowing an incompetent Premier making a deal where we pay three times what it cost of hydro to further his failed pet project. This whole policy was ill conceived, poorly planned and the execution was sketchy at best.
If ending coal power was that important, why broadcast his intention to the world and give away any bargaining power he had? Put the the requirements of the policy out to tender, make it competitive and once a decision was reached and the deal signed and the costs established then announce the phased shutdown of the coal plants. McGuinty gave away the store by broadcasting his plans and at that point they all had him over a barrel. In my capacity as a director, I've never let anyone of value go until the replacement is waiting in reception.
If ending coal power was that important, why broadcast his intention to the world and give away any bargaining power he had? Put the the requirements of the policy out to tender, make it competitive and once a decision was reached and the deal signed and the costs established then announce the phased shutdown of the coal plants. McGuinty gave away the store by broadcasting his plans and at that point they all had him over a barrel. In my capacity as a director, I've never let anyone of value go until the replacement is waiting in reception.
noooo.... This was a case of McGuinty putting sand in the K-Y before ass fucking us all
Unless you think the financial crisis we just had was a problem.
While the deregulation in the financial sector was the reason why it was so contagious, you can find the impact of oil prices there as well.
High energy costs reduce the profitability of almost every business, squeezing GDP growth out of the economy. Sure we are using more oil than ever, but we are paying a higher price. Consumers have less spending money due to the price at the pump, a price which is also an implicit component of the price of everything from food to appliances to home construction. Energy is a major input.
Peak oil is a poor name. For enough money, we can extract more and more oil through creative but increasingly expensive processes. Cheap Texas wells have given way to deep water drilling, fracking, and oil sands extraction.
This higher price for energy puts stress on the economy, causing people to use leverage to chase non existent real yields, leaving us with less capacity to withstand other shocks, and fewer profitable opportunities.
The financial crisis was triggered by people defaulting on dodgy mortgages in a system that was levered to the hilt. But why did they default in the first place? And what drove people to lever? Poor economic conditions arising from high oil prices damped consumer demand, shut barely profitable factories, abd generally lit the fuse on the financial bomb.
Oil price effects will always take this subtle form, weakening the system so that it cannot fight off other diseases.
We will need a combo of everything we can get, with the exception of coal, which should be banned outright.
Nukes can provide a steady, but fairly expensive, bed of power. There's no flexibility, since they are slow to stop, but they provide a steady energy output with controllable waste issues that aren't a major CO2 issue.
Natural gas is easier to start and stop, to move to locations where the power is needed, but will become expensive to run in a few years.
Hydro is the ideal green solution for Ontario, but we've tapped out the easy choices.
Wind/Solar are expensive at present but should be supported for future growth.
There aren't likely to be any other reasonable options for a few decades.
There is no problem with green energy, the problem was the ham handed way the McGuinty liberals forced it without any planning or foresight not to mention giving away all that money to samsung. OPG could have phased in wind & solar gradually. The problem wasn't so much the concept but rather the incompetence of those who initiated the program.
There are many, many things wrong with nuclear power. It certainly is something we need to invest in, but only for lack of better alternatives.
And I agree, we do lack better alternatives and should be investing in nuclear power
But we should be trying to minimize it by developing alternatives where we can.
Dream on
The "government" was NOT responsible for developing wind produced electrical technology.
IF there was a VIABLE alternative to creating power on the scale that nuclear and gas can,...private industry would be on top in a flash.
But what we are currently talking about here,...is magic crystals.
FAST
As long as the "government" takes the risk with your money,...I'd be OK with that,...problem is,...they risk/waste my money too,...and with lousy/NO returns to boot.
The "government" was NOT responsible for developing wind produced electrical technology.
IF there was a VIABLE alternative to creating power on the scale that nuclear and gas can,...private industry would be on top in a flash.
But what we are currently talking about here,...is magic crystals.
FAST
Yep. I have not seen the details of the Auditor General's report, but I also wonder if the value of the OPG land giveaway is included in the cost of the cancellations.
My problem with green is the high cost and poor operability. But I don't disagree that green should have a role. I believe in a balanced portfolio. Hydroelectric, fossil, nuke, wind, solar all have attributes that complement each other when used in the right proportions. The liberal idiots are not smart enough to let the industry pros do this. You are absolutely right that wind and solar should be phased in slowly rather than inserted abruptly like an unwanted suppository. The shit is going to come out on this sooner or later.
I am!!! The McGuinty dumb-dumbs have turned Ontario into a have-not province for the first time since confederation. And I believe their dumbass energy policies are the root cause.
In the same manner that I think we should be phasing in wind/solar at a sensible pace, I do not think we should outright dismiss coal. If you really want Ontario to have a smart mix of generation sources (which would optimize security and adequacy ... a couple of crucial electricity sector terms), then coal would have a role. Even the previous auditor general's office (in a previous report to the one on the cancelled gas plants) questioned why we were spending billions on new gas plants while shutting down 6,000 MW of perfectly good capacity at Nanticoke and Lambton. And therein is a key word: capacity. I don't advocate using coal anywhere near the extent that was done in the past by Ontario Hydro, but those of you who understand the difference between capacity and energy will know that if we really wanted to have a smart generation mix, we would be wise to keep two Lambton units and two Nanticoke units around for capacity. Furthermore, coal generating station have advantages even over natural gas. First - coal prices are much less volatile than nat gas adding predictability to electricity prices. Second - coal plants have on site fuel storage providing better security of supply than gas. Does anyone ever get curious about whether there is enough pipeline capacity to supply building/residential heat and power generation during extended nipply cold snaps? How about when a pipeline gets forced out of service at the same time? There are no restrictions on supplying coal into a station during those times. There are restrictions on those competing for the gas (although Marcellus fracked gas should alleviate that problem). Third - coal plants have much better turn down ratio, which refers to the ratio of minimum load to full load allowing a coal plant to provide much twice as much ramp capability as a similar sized combined cycle gas plant and more operating reserve. And this is why the Germans are turning back to coal instead of gas ..... too much renewables has significantly increased the amount operating reserve required and this need is better met by coal than nat gas. In Ontario the coal plants are built and long ago paid for. Do we really want to throw these assets away? The auditor general - who is not an electricity sector pro - thinks that we should not. And the last time I looked, this province wasn't in a financial position to by throwing out serviceable assets that cost billions to replace. The coal would not run every day, only during times of peak demand.
