Ontario Wind Energy Plans Costing $1 Billion Annually

[eznutz]

Ontario has embraced ‘green energy’. At the Lakehead University sponsored Research Matters event at Fort William Historical Park the audience was told that Ontario is not getting their ‘Bang for the Buck’ from the provincial network of wind turbines.

While the Premier has repeatedly stated how critical it is for Ontario to get off of coal, it appears perhaps that some of the research is being ignored. Perhaps too the high cost of wind turbines produced energy is being overlooked.

Russ McKitrick, from the University of Guelph stated that wind turbines are producing energy in Ontario at times when the demand is not there. That means Ontario is paying other jurisdictions to take the highly subsidized wind energy. Plus Ontario energy consumers are forced to pay to produce high costs for energy.

The University of Guelph researcher told the Thunder Bay audience that eighty per cent of the energy produced by wind turbines in Ontario is at times when it is not able to be used. The province ends up having to sell off that surplus subsidized energy to New York at a substantial loss.

In Thunder Bay, the news was received by members of the Friends of the Nor’Wester Mountain Escarpment. “We didn’t start out being against wind turbines, only the location, but as we dug in deeper and deeper, and the facts came out, we realized they are not a full solution,” according to one participant.

Energy costs are a detriment to manufacturing jobs, and are costing consumers more of their income. Ontario residents and businesses are now paying some of the highest energy prices in North America.

The Ontario solution of subsidized ‘Green Energy’ is hitting hard on the pocketbooks of Ontario taxpayers.

In the longer term, the highly subsidized wind energy and solar energy subsidies are costing Ontario taxpayers in higher energy costs, and in higher costs.

The long-term impact on Northwestern Ontario is huge and will carry long term impacts. Currently, the Ontario Government is borrowing one billion dollars a month.

A small increase in interest rates will hammer Ontario hard.

Wind Concerns Ontario says that over the next twenty years, the Ontario Government is also going to be on the hook for up to $1 billion a year for contracts that are in the approval process are brought online.

That cost of up to $20 billion dollars is on top of other costs.

http://www.netnewsledger.com/2014/03/05/ontario-wind-energy-plans-costing-1-billion-annually/

 

[KBear]

A small increase in interest rates will hammer Ontario hard.

Small increase? Hydro rates are to go up by 33% in the next few years.

Fortunately, will all the manufacturing jobs leaving the province, we wont need all the coal burning power plants.

Solar power plants are not practical in the southern US deserts, and our provincial government is throwing money at setting them up in northern Ontario.

 

[Yoga Face]

1 there is a cost to pollution

2 new technology will change this scenario

 

[Prim0]

1 there is a cost to pollution

2 new technology will change this scenario

There is a bigger cost to wasting resources on solutions that aren't there yet. Imagine what those billions of dollars could have done if used to improve the cleanliness of coal energy production, or research into new technologies.

Until the new technologies arrive, what's the point in trying to force people to use what doesn't work yet?

 

[Ref]

Small increase? Hydro rates are to go up by 33% in the next few years.

Fortunately, will all the manufacturing jobs leaving the province, we wont need all the coal burning power plants.

Solar power plants are not practical in the southern US deserts, and our provincial government is throwing money at setting them up in northern Ontario.

Rates have increased 35% since 2011 (I compared my bills). The debt retirement charge has also increased - I thought that was supposed to be paid off?

All rates per time of use have increased on average 35% with off-peak usage the highest, the debt retirement charge has increased by 35%

This is crazy!

 

[doggee_01]

Rates have increased 35% since 2011 (I compared my bills). The debt retirement charge has also increased - I thought that was supposed to be paid off?

All rates per time of use have increased on average 35% with off-peak usage the highest, the debt retirement charge has increased by 35%

This is crazy!

the only thing around ontario that needs retiring is the liberals!

 

[groggy]

The costs of wind turbines is nothing compared to our nukes.
Harris paid for for reactors to be refurbished, for instance, but only two were running after that.

The anti wind turbine info comes from the same lobbyists who do the climate change denial work as well.
To even try to blame wind turbines on the cost of hydro here is just ridiculous.

 

[Submariner]

Harris paid for for reactors to be refurbished, for instance, but only two were running after that.

Incorrect. The Harris Tories only paid for Pickering G4 refurbishment. The McGutless (did I spell that right?) Liberals approved the refurbishment of Pickering G1. The refurb of G2 and G3 was conditional on successful (i.e. on time, on budget) refurb of G1. It never got that far. OPG decided internally to not refurb G2 and G3 due to uncertainty on costs due to the material condition of those units.

To even try to blame wind turbines on the cost of hydro here is just ridiculous.

You are equally ridiculous to bury your head in the sand about the high cost of wind. How about injecting a few facts into the conversation. In Ontario, nuke generators are paid between (approx) $55 to $80 per MWh of production. Wind is paid $140/MWh. Ouch.

In Ontario in 2013, nuclear generation represented 39.3% of installed generation capacity in Ontario and yet provided 59.2% of all electricity produced. Wind represented 5.2% of capacity but only produced 3.4%, even though wind gets favourable dispatch over nukes despite the higher unit cost.

Regarding that last statement, is it clear to everyone that in Ontario, even though wind costs $140 per MW, it will continue to generate during low demand periods when market prices fall as low as -$5. In Ontario during low demand periods, we will reduce and/or shut down much cheaper generation sources including gas, nukes and hydroelectric and continue generating wind. In fact, Ontario would prefer to spill water past hydroelectric stations and shutdown hydroelectric units priced as low as $1/MW just so we can continue to generate our beloved wind turbines priced at $140/MW. How do you like wind now?

 

[FAST]

With summer off,...

The costs of wind turbines is nothing compared to our nukes.
Harris paid for for reactors to be refurbished, for instance, but only two were running after that.

The anti wind turbine info comes from the same lobbyists who do the climate change denial work as well.
To even try to blame wind turbines on the cost of hydro here is just ridiculous.

My understanding is that wind turbines only work some of the time,... a compliments the people who wasted billions on them,...

FAST

 

[Keebler Elf]

My understanding is that wind turbines only work some of the time,... a compliments the people who wasted billions on them,...

FAST

Something like they operate less than 1/3 of the time.

 

[dirk076]

The costs of wind turbines is nothing compared to our nukes.
Harris paid for for reactors to be refurbished, for instance, but only two were running after that.

The anti wind turbine info comes from the same lobbyists who do the climate change denial work as well.
To even try to blame wind turbines on the cost of hydro here is just ridiculous.

Riiigggghhhht. The facts and figures have been falsified in some vast right wing conspiracy. Ontarians have been bent over and fucked up the ass without lube by the Green Energy Act. Now that's a fact.

 

[bishop]

No power plant gets built in ontario without a government subsidy, Ontario has the loose image of a deregulated market but with all the inefficiencies of a government bureaucracy.

 

[fuji]

Riiigggghhhht. The facts and figures have been falsified in some vast right wing conspiracy. Ontarians have been bent over and fucked up the ass without lube by the Green Energy Act. Now that's a fact.

To be fair, the GEA worked. It did exactly what it was designed to do. It generated green industry, it created innovation in green energy, and it dramatically increased the share of green power.

It was never designed to save money, it was designed to be long term strategic, developing alternatives to fossil fuels, and it has done that.

That said, the government probably didn't realize just how successful it would be, and thus, how costly. They didn't cap the amount of the subsidy.

What we need now is investment in technology to use power off peak, either to store it for peak consumption, or actually use it. That is the missing piece that makes the current regime inefficient.

 

[shakenbake]

What we need now is investment in technology to use power off peak, either to store it for peak consumption, or actually use it. That is the missing piece that makes the current regime inefficient.

That, my friend, is the Achilles' heel of the green energy technology, in most cases.

 

[fuji]

That, my friend, is the Achilles' heel of the green energy technology, in most cases.

Yes, that is the next problem to solve.

GEA2 should cap the general production subsidy to a reasonable level, and offer a subsidy for green power delivered at peak, explicitly allowing for store and release technologies provided they remain low emission.

That would build on the success of GEA1 and get us to second base. Third base would be improving the efficiency of the green system, at which point private industry would hit the home run with no subsidy.

The GEA was a failure only if you expected it to be economically viable this decade. Long term strategic moves away from fossil fuels realistically will take a few decades.

But GEA1 does need to be capped, too much success without the storage technology is just eating money now. There are many ideas on the right technology to store and release power, we need to give the market an incentive to build it.

 

[Submariner]

To be fair, the GEA worked. It was never designed to save money, it was designed to be long term strategic, developing alternatives to fossil fuels, and it has done that.

Many observers would agree that one reason - not the only reason, but an key factor for why Ontario came to be the economic engine of Canada during the 20th century was access to abundant, reliable and cheap electricity. The McGoofball (did I spell that right?) Liberals have managed to undo the relative strengths Ontario had and turned us into a have not province. I must be too short-sighted to see what the long term benefit of high electricity prices. In the UK for the every day folk they are calling it "energy poverty". Is that the long-term Liberal strategy?

 

[Submariner]

What we need now is investment in technology to use power off peak, either to store it for peak consumption, or actually use it. That is the missing piece that makes the current regime inefficient.

I would hesitate to say that by adding storage to green energy would make the system efficient. I agree that green with store/release is more efficient than without, but to call it "efficient" versus other sources of generation requires psychoactive substances. Any store/release system is more expensive than the primary energy source. So if you generate electricity using wind energy (at $140/MW), losses incurred during the release would realistically be in the order of 25%, resulting in a cost of the released energy at $175/MW. How does this compare to hydroelectric at $35, gas at $40, nukes at $80? At least store/release will allow time shifting of wind energy to when it is needed. But my definition of "efficient" includes an economic component, and in my lifetime, I don't see wind being economic.

 

[oil&gas]

I think available hydro power resources in Ontario have been almost
fully developed. According to some posts it is prudent to stick with
gas, coal and nuclear at least until the cost of renewable power like
wind and solar becomes nearly as cheap as non-renewable energy.
But realistically is this ever going to transpire? Fossil fuel and uranium
are highly concentrated energy resource. In a sense crude oil, nat gas and
coal are solar energy trapped in organic material. Wind and sunlight
are in comparison a very diffuse form of energy. Technological
advancement will no doubt increase the efficiency of wind and solar
power generation. But to be realistic is it likely we will ever bring
the cost of heating your home with solar power down to a level
that is competitive with coal power? If economy is the deciding factor
we may as well give up solar and wind power until we finally run out
of fossil resources or until greenhouse effect transforms the world
to a desert.

 

[fuji]

I would hesitate to say that by adding storage to green energy would make the system efficient. I agree that green with store/release is more efficient than without, but to call it "efficient" versus other sources of generation requires psychoactive substances.

Carbon energy faces similar problems. The energy is often needed far from where it's located--for example, a barrel of oil located 500 feet under the ground in Saudi Arabia is needed in Toronto. The energy and economic costs of extracting the fuel, moving it to a processing station, building the processing station, processing it, moving the processed form to where it's needed, building the plant to burn it -- those costs are also steep and when looked at that way, not all that efficient either. It works well because industry got really, really good at optimizing that stuff.

Green energy faces a whole different set of problems than fossil fuels, and the technologies to solve those problems are nowhere near as mature. A store/release system implemented today is not going to be as efficient as a fossil fuel system, but it could be. There is no reason why you cannot develop cheap and effective methods of storing energy and then releasing it later, with only, say, 20-30 percent losses. That would be more efficient than shipping coal around the world by boat or rail.

The idea would be to subsidize companies that develop the technology by creating a guaranteed market for their product. Let industry figure out how to do it efficiently, and just as they kicked in and built what GEA incented, they will kick in and build store/release technologies as well -- and over time, they will make it efficient, for profit seeking reasons.

Your numbers for the costs of coal vs gas vs nuclear vs wind are just wonky. You appear to be using a worst-case number for wind, based on including worst-case system costs, and a number for coal that excludes most of the system costs. That's not apples to apples. Wind power costs about $85/mw vw coal at about $100/mw when all costs are in, which is comparable except that coal generates power when it's needed and wind often generates when it's not needed. A 20-30% loss on wind to get the power when it is needed would put it exactly even with coal, with all costs included in comparable ways.

 

[MattRoxx]

How does the cost of wind energy compare to the cost of our old nuclear plants?