Ontario Wind Energy Plans Costing $1 Billion Annually

[groggy]

I was waiting to see if someone would get sucked in by reports in the media (promoted by the wind industry) that blamed nukes for accounting for the greatest portion of global adjustment. C'mon Groggy, you can do better than that. As was stated earlier in the thread, nuclear provides about 60% of all electricity produced in this province and wind only 3%. Now really, did you expect nuclear to not account for most of the global adjustment? For more, refer to: https://www.ieso.ca/imoweb/pubs/EMB/Understanding_GA_August_2012.pdf

Sure, but you can't deny that its one of the hidden costs of nuclear that you ignored when you just used generation rates as your basis.
But the biggest is the hidden stranded debt.

We're still paying about $1 billion a year for the stranded nuclear debt on our bill, from the $20 billion left from nuke repairs.
http://www.thestar.com/business/2010/08/06/ontario_hydros_legacy_of_debt.html

You aren't including that in your pricing, are you?

 

[Submariner]

The purpose of programs like the GEA is to spur development of alternative technologies which have not yet reached the same level of optimization.

True enough, but let's be realistic that an optimized green system may never come close to the efficiency/economics of an optimized carbon system.

"Potential" may be just that, and never realized. I remember reading National Geographic as a kid in the 70's about the future of energy. Fusion energy was foreseen to have "the potential" to solve our all of energy needs and do it within the next 25 years. Well, it is 40 years later and we still have not yet operated a demonstration reactor, never mind a commercial one. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER or https://www.iter.org/. Some of us will remember the early "potential" of nuclear fission energy, including one claim that it would be too cheap to meter!!

With that in mind, green energy advocates need to get off their sybians and become more realistic about the potential for improvements in efficiency. Even with efficient storage, green energy more expensive than existing hydro, carbon and nuclear systems. Is there a place for green? Sure, but let's be realistic about it's role and and take the time to integrate it efficiently into the existing system, a concept with which the McBrainless Liberals are obviously and apallingly unfamiliar.

 

[GPIDEAL]

They are not great, but the Cons are an absolute farce.. I cannot believe Hudak is still their leader...

If he doesn't resonate with you, that's because he doesn't lie to or inspire the public with bullshit like McGuinty did.

 

[GPIDEAL]

@ Oil&Gas:

Do you really think or are there other jurisdictions that believe they can replace fossil fuel or nuclear power with green energy sources? Engineers say no.

 

[GPIDEAL]

True enough, but let's be realistic that an optimized green system may never come close to the efficiency/economics of an optimized carbon system.

"Potential" may be just that, and never realized. I remember reading National Geographic as a kid in the 70's about the future of energy. Fusion energy was foreseen to have "the potential" to solve our all of energy needs and do it within the next 25 years. Well, it is 40 years later and we still have not yet operated a demonstration reactor, never mind a commercial one. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER or https://www.iter.org/. Some of us will remember the early "potential" of nuclear fission energy, including one claim that it would be too cheap to meter!!

With that in mind, green energy advocates need to get off their sybians and become more realistic about the potential for improvements in efficiency. Even with efficient storage, green energy more expensive than existing hydro, carbon and nuclear systems. Is there a place for green? Sure, but let's be realistic about it's role and and take the time to integrate it efficiently into the existing system, a concept with which the McBrainless Liberals are obviously and apallingly unfamiliar.

The voice of reason.

Efficiency is the issue as also pointed out by my electronic engineer buddy.

 

[Keebler Elf]

The technology can be developed and made efficient with the right incentives. The goal of a subsidy would be to spur innovation in this area and develop good viable technologies.

Oh god... The exact same argument was used for wind and solar and we all know how that turned out!

 

[Submariner]

Sure, but you can't deny that its one of the hidden costs of nuclear that you ignored when you just used generation rates as your basis.
But the biggest is the hidden stranded debt.

We're still paying about $1 billion a year for the stranded nuclear debt on our bill, from the $20 billion left from nuke repairs.
http://www.thestar.com/business/2010/08/06/ontario_hydros_legacy_of_debt.html

You aren't including that in your pricing, are you?

I clearly stated the pricing I gave was for energy produced (see post 36 where I said "get paid in Ontario from the Ontario Power Authority for energy produced".

Regarding the stranded debt, check your bill again, but this time please read carefully. On my Toronto Hydro bill, I pay a "Debt Retirement Charge". Look on the back of the statement and the explanation is that this is to "pay down the debt of the former Ontario Hydro". It does not say nuke debt. the former Ontario Hydro had debt for a number of reasons, and with nuke construction being the largest contributor but by no means the only one.

Finally, although I did not include nuke debt recovery charges in the price of nuke energy in Ontario per MW/h, nor did I include the cost of green energy subsidies in the cost of wind and solar. Not did I include the additional cost of replacement capacity for wind and solar when electricity demand is there and they are not. So let's see, we have to build 2,000 MW of gas generation to be available on days when the 2,000 MW of wind capacity isn't there. So how much does that cost? Do you include the $1B the McLiar and his successor, Dude with the Pearls had us pay for the two gas plants that they cancelled becasue they said we did not need them except for the fact that we are building them somewhere else?

So if you want to talk about non-energy costs and subsidies, then you better compile a list for green energy too.

Speaking of which, at least the nuke costs are not being candy coated. How stupid does Dude with the Pearls and her predecessor, McCriminal think we are? Because the green energy initiative is costing so much, the Liberals take money from me in taxes and then give it back to me on my Electricity bill as a "Green Energy Benefit" WTF??!! Really??!!

If you can swallow that, then by the same logic we should change the name of the "Debt Retirement Charge" and call it the "Ontario Hydro Nuclear Benefit".

 

[Submariner]

@ Oil&Gas:

Do you really think or are there other jurisdictions that believe they can replace fossil fuel or nuclear power with green energy sources? Engineers say no.

I have posted previously how in Germany utilities have actually started bringing back coal fired energy (ahead of gas) to provide the sufficient operating reserve requirements needed for the large scale influx of wind and solar in that country.

 

[GPIDEAL]

.....and how are McGuinty or Wynn any better? Look at the absolute mess they've made of the electrical system. They undid in 10 years what took almost a century to build. Up until McGuinty's brain fart of a policy, both parties have since the time of Adam Beck agrees to keep hydro costs low and have a built in advantage over other North American jurisdictions in terms of energy costs. I guess McGuinty had other plans? Perhaps it was his plan to transform Ontario from a manufacturing based economy back to an agrarian economy where we are once again drawers of water and hewers of wood..... Hold on, I forgot it takes hydro to run saw mills, and with the cost going up another 35-40 % we won't be able to afford processing lumber either. Then again, that smug faced wooden energy minister Bob Chiarelli says the increase adds up to a cup of coffee per day. What an utter farce of a government we ended up with, would someone please call an election!!!

Amen.

 

[GPIDEAL]

I have posted previously how in Germany utilities have actually started bringing back coal fired energy (ahead of gas) to provide the sufficient operating reserve requirements needed for the large scale influx of wind and solar in that country.

I don't quite follow? While existing solar and wind power plants are not providing their alternate energy when there's a demand, they use coal as a back up? Which post # please? Thanks.

 

[GPIDEAL]

The technology can be developed and made efficient with the right incentives. The goal of a subsidy would be to spur innovation in this area and develop good viable technologies.

Oh god... The exact same argument was used for wind and solar and we all know how that turned out!

The Global Adjustment negated any savings I had under a commercial utility contract, which pisses me off. Why allow energy supply wholesalers in the market place if the government will fuck you another way?

The GA ensures contracted and regulated generators get paid at set rates and provides extra funds for conservation programs. Do those 'conservation programs' include solar and wind power or the development of alternative or green energy sources?

 

[terom]

.....and how are McGuinty or Wynn any better? Look at the absolute mess they've made of the electrical system. They undid in 10 years what took almost a century to build.

And who was it who disbanded Ontario Hydro to create five companies each with a CEO, Board of Directors and their own senior management teams?

Who was it who for a time froze Hydro rates at BELOW what it cost to produce it??

 

[nottyboi]

And who was it who disbanded Ontario Hydro to create five companies each with a CEO, Board of Directors and their own senior management teams?

Who was it who for a time froze Hydro rates at BELOW what it cost to produce it??

At the time setting up our own Enron seemed like such a good idea....

 

[Submariner]

And who was it who disbanded Ontario Hydro to create five companies each with a CEO, Board of Directors and their own senior management teams?

Who was it who for a time froze Hydro rates at BELOW what it cost to produce it??

My memory is far from perfect and I may very well be wrong on this, but I don't recall Liberal and NDP policy being staunchly against the deregulation of electricity and in favour of continuing the Ontario Hydro monopoly.

 

[FAST]

I have posted previously how in Germany utilities have actually started bringing back coal fired energy (ahead of gas) to provide the sufficient operating reserve requirements needed for the large scale influx of wind and solar in that country.

AND,... the reduction of nuclear,...due to short sited greens ranting after Japan,...had to do something quick,...usually the result of dumb ass government decisions,...!!!

FAST

 

[Marcus1027]

And who was it who disbanded Ontario Hydro to create five companies each with a CEO, Board of Directors and their own senior management teams?

Who was it who for a time froze Hydro rates at BELOW what it cost to produce it??

......that was how many years ago? The issue now is the spiralling cost of hydro and the misguided policies of this government. Rather than take a pragmatic approach to renewables and a gradual phase in period , they took a ham fisted approach with costly consequences, and we are paying the price now. The FIT program is insane, paying .30-.50 kW/h then selling the surplus at a huge loss. At the very least, offer that surplus power to domestic users first. Manufacturers often run the plants around the clock, why not offer discounted rates for overnight use and take advantage of the surplus?

No matter what you think and say, this current state of affairs rests squarely on the shoulders of the current liberal government. They were in such a rush to kill of coal, they had no replacement and Samsung took McGuinty to the cleaners. BTW, how long until we see McGuinty on the board of Samsung?

 

[Submariner]

I don't quite follow? While existing solar and wind power plants are not providing their alternate energy when there's a demand, they use coal as a back up? Which post # please? Thanks.

It was a post in another thread from a month or three ago. If I can locate the industry reference, I will post it.

To summarize, Germany has implemented enough wind and embedded rooftop solar that at times during sunny, windy days, all of Germany's needs are met by these sources of generation. However, there is still a requirement for "operating reserve" and this requirement is increasingly being met by the use of coal generation which is favoured over gas because of the superior turndown ratio of coal plants over combined cycle gas plants.

 

[terom]

Installed Energy Capacity by Fuel Type (January 2014)

 

[fuji]

True enough, but let's be realistic that an optimized green system may never come close to the efficiency/economics of an optimized carbon system.

"Potential" may be just that, and never realized. I remember reading National Geographic as a kid in the 70's about the future of energy. Fusion energy was foreseen to have "the potential" to solve our all of energy needs and do it within the next 25 years. Well, it is 40 years later and we still have not yet operated a demonstration reactor, never mind a commercial one. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER or https://www.iter.org/. Some of us will remember the early "potential" of nuclear fission energy, including one claim that it would be too cheap to meter!!

With that in mind, green energy advocates need to get off their sybians and become more realistic about the potential for improvements in efficiency. Even with efficient storage, green energy more expensive than existing hydro, carbon and nuclear systems. Is there a place for green? Sure, but let's be realistic about it's role and and take the time to integrate it efficiently into the existing system, a concept with which the McBrainless Liberals are obviously and apallingly unfamiliar.

The technologies needed to store and released energy are not crazy future technologies like fusion. It's things like pumping water up a tower, or compressing air, then driving a turbine from releasing the water or the air on demand.

No major breakthrough is required to make these things happen. What's needed are industry standards, fine tuning, economies of scale, efficient manufacturing, and business process development around how to manage the supply.

 

[GPIDEAL]

It was a post in another thread from a month or three ago. If I can locate the industry reference, I will post it.

To summarize, Germany has implemented enough wind and embedded rooftop solar that at times during sunny, windy days, all of Germany's needs are met by these sources of generation. However, there is still a requirement for "operating reserve" and this requirement is increasingly being met by the use of coal generation which is favoured over gas because of the superior turndown ratio of coal plants over combined cycle gas plants.

What is turndown ratio?