High energy prices will drive manufacturers out of Ontario. The politicians are so obsessed with the green agenda that they are unable to see how much damage it does to the economy. By the time they figure it out it will be too late. Ontario does not need to get off coal, Ontario needs to invest in the existing, proven technology that eliminates most of the pollution from coal plants. Business needs cheap energy, not expensive energy. Witness Heinz closing the Leamington plant and Chrysler keeping its options open by rejecting government aid that would have forced it keep manufacturing in Ontario for the long term.
Ontario Wind Energy Plans Costing $1 Billion Annually
- Thread starter eznutz
- Start date
This is something I've never understood. The powers that be tell us to conserve - save the environment, save resources and save money on our bills. So a lot of us do and our bills never go down, our rates increase (to make up for the revenue shortfall maybe?) and the environment isn't better off. If people switch to doing things off peak, the rates for off peak are jacked up.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!
Ridiculous.
Sorry to hijack the topic.
Funny then that these businesses are fleeing to jurisdictions with energy prices that are much higher than ours.High energy prices will drive manufacturers out of Ontario. The politicians are so obsessed with the green agenda that they are unable to see how much damage it does to the economy. By the time they figure it out it will be too late. Ontario does not need to get off coal, Ontario needs to invest in the existing, proven technology that eliminates most of the pollution from coal plants. Business needs cheap energy, not expensive energy. Witness Heinz closing the Leamington plant and Chrysler keeping its options open by rejecting government aid that would have forced it keep manufacturing in Ontario for the long term.
Maybe it's not the energy prices, maybe it's labour cost...
Depends on location. I'd like to see two installed in locations where the wind is strongest. I'd set one up in the Ontario legislative assembly and the other in the Canadian house of commons. I am concerned that the gears could get gummed up in shit however.Something like they operate less than 1/3 of the time.
G4 was the big disaster on Harris' watch, G1 went much better after that under the watch of the liberals.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.
Focusing only on the generation costs ignores the biggest costs of nuclear compared to wind. There is a part of your hydro bill, 'global adjustments' that hides the true costs. 60% of hydro bills are covered by this, with the vast majority of it coming from nuclear and gas costs.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?
I'm going to email that article's link to the provincial conservatives. My friend who's an electrical engineer has been saying for a few years that WP is not a viable solution. We will bankrupt ourselves if we let governments waste money on this.
By Achilles heel, what I meant to say is that there are really no large-scale, economically and technically viable store and release solutions out there for alternative energy such as wind power. Woudl that it were that straightforward.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.
They are not great, but the Cons are an absolute farce.. I cannot believe Hudak is still their leader...the only thing around ontario that needs retiring is the liberals!
.....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!!!They are not great, but the Cons are an absolute farce.. I cannot believe Hudak is still their leader...
Pumped storage hydroelectricity currently has an efficiency of around 75 percent. Research in this area will be able to greatly improve on that. Compressed air techniques have the potential to be 90 percent efficient.By Achilles heel, what I meant to say is that there are really no large-scale, economically and technically viable store and release solutions out there for alternative energy such as wind power. Woudl that it were that straightforward.
One technique is to have the wind turbine pump water directly, or operate the compressor mechanically, rather than generating electricity, then drive a turbine on demand to generate power from the elevated water reservoir or from release of the compressed air.
There are other approaches as well. 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.
whereas coal pollutes and kills all the the timeMy understanding is that wind turbines only work some of the time,... a compliments the people who wasted billions on them,...
FAST
Good points. However, what is the realistic cost to implement these technologies, and how reliable are they?Pumped storage hydroelectricity currently has an efficiency of around 75 percent. Research in this area will be able to greatly improve on that. Compressed air techniques have the potential to be 90 percent efficient.
One technique is to have the wind turbine pump water directly, or operate the compressor mechanically, rather than generating electricity, then drive a turbine on demand to generate power from the elevated water reservoir or from release of the compressed air.
There are other approaches as well. 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.
More elegant and possibly flexible solutions might incorporate hydrogen generation and storage, super-capacitor technologies, and the like. But, these are a long way off.
As to incentives, that tacitly implies that the governing bodies would know what they are doing, and would have realistic goals in mind.
:thumb:Depends on location. I'd like to see two installed in locations where the wind is strongest. I'd set one up in the Ontario legislative assembly and the other in the Canadian house of commons. I am concerned that the gears could get gummed up in shit however.
Efficiency has a $ component. If moving the energy from source to sink were truly inefficient, this would be reflected in the cost and we would not do it. So if buying and transporting oil from Saudi Arabia is cheaper than the alternative, then we burn it. Go to the IESO website and look closely. If you know what to look for, you will see that this actually happened last week when oil was cheaper than gas in Ontario.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.
I am quoting what the owners of these generators sources get paid get paid in Ontario from the Ontario Power Authority for energy produced. Gas and coal is market based and will depend on market prices for these commodities. For example, OPA pays combined cycle gas generators the cost of fuel x heat rate x exchange rate + various small adders. If gas is trading at $4.5 per MMBtu, then they will get paid about $40/MW. Coal is in the same ball park. OPG gets about $55 per MW for Pickering and Darlington, Bruce Power gets in the order of $65 to $80 per MWh for Bruce A and Bruce B. Onshore winf gets $140/MWh, and offshore (there are none currently in Ontario) would get $180. Solar gets $400. Where are you getting your numbers from?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.
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.pdfFocusing only on the generation costs ignores the biggest costs of nuclear compared to wind. There is a part of your hydro bill, 'global adjustments' that hides the true costs. 60% of hydro bills are covered by this, with the vast majority of it coming from nuclear and gas costs.
All of our nukes are old. The newest plant, Darlington, had its first unit come into service 20 years ago. Darlington gets paid about $55 per MWh. The most expensive Bruce units get $80/MWh. Wind in Ontario gets $140.How does the cost of wind energy compare to the cost of our old nuclear plants?
That's true, carbon energy has been through decades of optimization at every stage and is pretty efficient now.Efficiency has a $ component. If moving the energy from source to sink were truly inefficient, this would be reflected in the cost and we would not do it. So if buying and transporting oil from Saudi Arabia is cheaper than the alternative, then we burn it. Go to the IESO website and look closely. If you know what to look for, you will see that this actually happened last week when oil was cheaper than gas in Ontario.
The purpose of programs like the GEA is to spur development of alternative technologies which have not yet reached the same level of optimization.
Ah so that is why your numbers aren't realistic. The subsidies, etc., are baked in to those figures, and so they do not reflect the prices we can expect in the long run.I am quoting what the owners of these generators sources get paid get paid in Ontario from the Ontario Power Authority for energy produced.
Long term, the price for wind energy will come way down, but we still need to solve the storage problem to make it a true alternative.
GEA only got us half way to making that true.
Ukraine Crisis Shows Urgency of Green Energy: Russian Nat’l Gas Blackmail
I think we can learn a thing or two from some of the European nations
where renewable energy supply meets a significantly larger proportion of
their energy needs. Surely burning natural gas imported from Russia is a lot
cheaper than wind power and cleaner than burning coal. But if Germany
can increase its renewable energy usage to nearly 25% of its energy
mix without undermining its vibrant economy can't we do the same?
Unlike Europe we are self-sufficient in non-renewable energy. But fossil
fuel is a finite resource and will become increasingly more costly to
extract. The time to act to wean ourselves off fossil fuel is when
it is still abundant so we can subsidize the development of the more
costly but sustainable green power with cheap energy. If we have the
perseverance to overcome the cost hurdle this transition to wind
power will one day be looked back as a short term pain that is a small
price to pay for a secure energy future.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.juancole.com/2014/03/ukraine-russian-blackmail.html
Juan Cole Mar 6, 2014
Hawks are complaining that Europe has been insufficiently belligerent in its response to Russian moves in the Crimea, blaming the declining military budgets in most European countries. But this focus on military hardware is misleading, since there was never any prospect of a conventional military confrontation with the Russian Federation, given that France and Britain are nuclear powers and so is Russia. MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) rules here, and diplomacy and economic sanctions were always going to be the only realistic tools for resolution of the crisis.
The threat of economic sanctions would be more realistic if Europe did not depend so heavily on Russia for its natural gas. 40% of Germany’s natural gas and one third of Europe’s natural gas in general is imported from that country.
House Republican majority leader John Boehner (R-OH) unrealistically urged that the US export more natural gas to Europe to offset the Russian advantage. This suggestion implies a press to increase hydraulic fracturing, which is environmentally debilitating, a water hog, a water polluter, and is implicated in deadly methane and CO2 emissions that will sink Miami and New York. Submerging our own cities is not a very logical response to Russian adventurism. Others have urged that Ukraine itself go in for fracking. Fracking is extremely expensive, especially if you count its environmental impact. Wind and solar are now at grid parity in much of the world with hydrocarbons, and since they are environmentally much less costly, governments should be putting in tax and other benefits to encourage rapid adoption.
Germany’s response to climate change and the geopolitics of its dependence on hydrocarbons (it has few of its own) has been an Energy Switch (Energiewende), wherein the government has pushed the expansion of wind and solar power. The costs of doing so are substantially less than would be re-arming with conventional weapons, as the hawks seem to imply that Europe should. Plus if you spent billions on weapons systems, you’d have wasted your money, whereas every dollar spent on green energy benefits the economy and the environment enormously. Despite cautions about Germany’s use of coal in its transition away from nuclear power, coal is 5%
less of its energy mix now than in 2003. Renewables have increased as a proportion of the German energy mix from 7% to nearly a quarter. This change was accomplished at a time when solar panels were tremendously more expensive than they are now, and both price and efficiency will favor a vast expansion of solar over the next decade.
There are other European success stories. Denmark now gets 25% of its electricity from wind, and intends to get half by 2020. Scotland is at 40% renewable energy this year and hopes to be completely dependent on renewables by 2020. Spain and Portugal have also shown that high proportions of electricity being generated by renewables is not a matter for the future; it can be done right now.
The fact is that Germany won’t be dependent on Russian natural gas very much longer. Whether the rest of Europe is depends on its energy policies. The only way to get energy independence and save the environment simultaneously is to go in for wind, solar and wave energy.
Energy independence would not only free Europe to be more aggressive in financially sanctioning Russia if that were needed, it would allow Ukraine itself to be less beholden to Moscow.
Moving quickly to plug-in hybrids and electric cars would also allow Europe and the rest of the industrialized world to cease its dependence on petroleum from the Middle East, which would give Saudi Arabia and Iran less leverage in regional and world affairs.
Energy independence will make for a more honest world politics and remove the advantages that authoritarian states often have over democracies. At the same time, swiftly adopting renewables will mitigate the worst effects of climate change; present policies are taking us toward a 10 degrees F. increase in global world average temperatures, which could destabilize our climate, producing megastorms and raging seas, not to mention desertifying now fertile breadbaskets.
I think we can learn a thing or two from some of the European nations
where renewable energy supply meets a significantly larger proportion of
their energy needs. Surely burning natural gas imported from Russia is a lot
cheaper than wind power and cleaner than burning coal. But if Germany
can increase its renewable energy usage to nearly 25% of its energy
mix without undermining its vibrant economy can't we do the same?
Unlike Europe we are self-sufficient in non-renewable energy. But fossil
fuel is a finite resource and will become increasingly more costly to
extract. The time to act to wean ourselves off fossil fuel is when
it is still abundant so we can subsidize the development of the more
costly but sustainable green power with cheap energy. If we have the
perseverance to overcome the cost hurdle this transition to wind
power will one day be looked back as a short term pain that is a small
price to pay for a secure energy future.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.juancole.com/2014/03/ukraine-russian-blackmail.html
Juan Cole Mar 6, 2014
Hawks are complaining that Europe has been insufficiently belligerent in its response to Russian moves in the Crimea, blaming the declining military budgets in most European countries. But this focus on military hardware is misleading, since there was never any prospect of a conventional military confrontation with the Russian Federation, given that France and Britain are nuclear powers and so is Russia. MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) rules here, and diplomacy and economic sanctions were always going to be the only realistic tools for resolution of the crisis.
The threat of economic sanctions would be more realistic if Europe did not depend so heavily on Russia for its natural gas. 40% of Germany’s natural gas and one third of Europe’s natural gas in general is imported from that country.
House Republican majority leader John Boehner (R-OH) unrealistically urged that the US export more natural gas to Europe to offset the Russian advantage. This suggestion implies a press to increase hydraulic fracturing, which is environmentally debilitating, a water hog, a water polluter, and is implicated in deadly methane and CO2 emissions that will sink Miami and New York. Submerging our own cities is not a very logical response to Russian adventurism. Others have urged that Ukraine itself go in for fracking. Fracking is extremely expensive, especially if you count its environmental impact. Wind and solar are now at grid parity in much of the world with hydrocarbons, and since they are environmentally much less costly, governments should be putting in tax and other benefits to encourage rapid adoption.
Germany’s response to climate change and the geopolitics of its dependence on hydrocarbons (it has few of its own) has been an Energy Switch (Energiewende), wherein the government has pushed the expansion of wind and solar power. The costs of doing so are substantially less than would be re-arming with conventional weapons, as the hawks seem to imply that Europe should. Plus if you spent billions on weapons systems, you’d have wasted your money, whereas every dollar spent on green energy benefits the economy and the environment enormously. Despite cautions about Germany’s use of coal in its transition away from nuclear power, coal is 5%
less of its energy mix now than in 2003. Renewables have increased as a proportion of the German energy mix from 7% to nearly a quarter. This change was accomplished at a time when solar panels were tremendously more expensive than they are now, and both price and efficiency will favor a vast expansion of solar over the next decade.
There are other European success stories. Denmark now gets 25% of its electricity from wind, and intends to get half by 2020. Scotland is at 40% renewable energy this year and hopes to be completely dependent on renewables by 2020. Spain and Portugal have also shown that high proportions of electricity being generated by renewables is not a matter for the future; it can be done right now.
The fact is that Germany won’t be dependent on Russian natural gas very much longer. Whether the rest of Europe is depends on its energy policies. The only way to get energy independence and save the environment simultaneously is to go in for wind, solar and wave energy.
Energy independence would not only free Europe to be more aggressive in financially sanctioning Russia if that were needed, it would allow Ukraine itself to be less beholden to Moscow.
Moving quickly to plug-in hybrids and electric cars would also allow Europe and the rest of the industrialized world to cease its dependence on petroleum from the Middle East, which would give Saudi Arabia and Iran less leverage in regional and world affairs.
Energy independence will make for a more honest world politics and remove the advantages that authoritarian states often have over democracies. At the same time, swiftly adopting renewables will mitigate the worst effects of climate change; present policies are taking us toward a 10 degrees F. increase in global world average temperatures, which could destabilize our climate, producing megastorms and raging seas, not to mention desertifying now fertile breadbaskets.
Last edited:
