Solar Power

[Hamloc]

Off topic I know. I was searching on the net this morning to see if solar panels were manufactured in Canada and came across Solardirectcanada.com. It appears to be Ontario based and had some interesting reading.

It had a chart comparing what you would be payed for the power you generate in 2015 and new rates in 2016. A small system on your house you would recieve 38.4 cents per KW in 2015 but in 2016 you would get 29.4 cents a KW. For large ground systems up to 500 KW the rate was 27.5 in 2015, new rate was 20.9.

In Alberta I pay 8 cents a KW and there are new contracts out at lower prices. Of course I have line fees and admin above that. Not sure what the consumer has to pay in Ontario but I can't see how solar power is considered cheap.

Also was an article on the site which talked about the Canada border agency applying anti dumping fees of up to 200% on Chinese solar panels starting March of 2015. They were under cutting Canadian manufacturers. There was an article in the Globe and Mail a few months later which talked of these charges being refunded but I think a tariff was put in its place.

My point is this, all those people promoting how cheap green power is need to look at the facts. Have a good day:-)

[chuckChuck]

From Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
Oct 5, 2015

Wind and solar boost cost-competitiveness versus fossil fuels

Levelised cost of electricity analysis for H2 2015 shows onshore wind to be fully competitive against gas and coal in some parts of the world, while solar is closing the gap

London and New York, 6 October 2015 – This year has brought a significant shift in the generating cost comparison between renewable energy and fossil fuels, according to detailed analysis by technology and region, published this week by Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

The research company’s Levelised Cost of Electricity Update for the second half of 2015, based on thousands of data points related to individual deals and projects around the world, shows that onshore wind and crystalline silicon photovoltaics – the two most widespread renewable technologies – have both reduced costs this year, while costs have gone up for gas-fired and coal-fired generation.

The BNEF study shows that the global average levelised cost of electricity, or LCOE, for onshore wind nudged downwards from $85 per megawatt-hour in the first half of the year, to $83 in H2, while that for crystalline silicon PV solar fell from $129 to $122.

In the same period, the LCOE for coal-fired generation increased from $66 per MWh to $75 in the Americas, from $68 to $73 in Asia-Pacific, and from $82 to $105 in Europe. The LCOE for combined-cycle gas turbine generation rose from $76 to $82 in the Americas, from $85 to $93 in Asia-Pacific and from $103 to $118 in EMEA.

Seb Henbest, head of Europe, Middle East and Africa at Bloomberg New Energy Finance, commented: “Our report shows wind and solar power continuing to get cheaper in 2015, helped by cheaper technology but also by lower finance costs. Meanwhile, coal and gas have got more expensive on the back of lower utilisation rates, and in Europe, higher carbon price assumptions following passage of the Market Stability Reserve reform.”

Levelised costs take into account not just the cost of generating a marginal MWh of electricity, but also the upfront capital and development expense, the cost of equity and debt finance, and operating and maintenance fees.

Among other low-carbon energy technologies, offshore wind reduced its global average LCOE from $176 per MWh, to $174, but still remains significantly more expensive than wind, solar PV, coal or gas, while biomass incineration saw its levelised cost stay steady at $134 per MWh. Nuclear, like coal and gas, has very different LCOE levels from one region of the world to another, but both the Americas and the Europe, Middle East and Africa region saw increases in levelised costs, to $261 and $158 per MWh respectively.

Among the country-level findings of the BNEF study are that onshore wind is now fully cost-competitive with both gas-fired and coal-fired generation, once carbon costs are taken into account, in the UK and Germany. In the UK, onshore wind comes in on average at $85 per MWh in the second half of 2015, compared to $115 for combined-cycle gas and $115 for coal-fired power; in Germany, onshore wind is at $80, compared to $118 for gas and $106 for coal.

In China, onshore wind is cheaper than gas-fired power, at $77 per MWh versus $113, but it is much more expensive still than coal-generated electricity, at $44, while solar PV power is at $109. In the US, coal and gas are still cheaper, at $65 per MWh, against onshore wind at $80 and PV at $107.

Luke Mills, analyst, energy economics at Bloomberg New Energy Finance, said: “Generating costs continue to vary greatly from region to region, reflecting influences such as the shale gas boom in the US, changing utilisation rates in areas of high renewables penetration, the shortage of local gas production in East Asia, carbon prices in Europe, differing regulations on nuclear power across the world, and contrasting resources for solar generation.

“But onshore wind and solar PV are both now much more competitive against the established generation technologies than would have seemed possible only five or 10 years ago.”

CONTACT:
Ethan Zindler
Bloomberg New Energy Finance
(202) 416-3466
ezindler@bloomberg.net

ABOUT BLOOMBERG NEW ENERGY FINANCE

Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) provides unique analysis, tools and data for decision makers driving change in the energy system. With unrivalled depth and breadth, we help clients stay on top of developments across the energy spectrum from our comprehensive web-based platform. BNEF has 200 staff based in London, New York, Beijing, Cape Town, Hong Kong, Munich, New Delhi, San Francisco, São Paulo, Singapore, Sydney, Tokyo, Washington D.C., and Zurich.

BNEF products fit your daily workflow, streamline your research, sharpen your strategy and keep you informed. BNEF’s sectoral products provide financial, economic and policy analysis, as well as news and the world’s most comprehensive database of assets, investments, companies and equipment in the clean energy space. BNEF’s regional products provide a comprehensive view on the transformation of the energy system by region.

New Energy Finance Limited was acquired by Bloomberg L.P. in December 2009, and its services and products are now owned and distributed by Bloomberg Finance L.P., except that Bloomberg L.P. and its subsidiaries (BLP) distribute these products in Argentina, Bermuda, China, India, Japan, and Korea. For more information on Bloomberg New Energy Finance: http://about.bnef.com, or contact us at sales.bnef@bloomberg.net for more information on our services.

ABOUT BLOOMBERG

Bloomberg, the global business and financial information and news leader, gives influential decision makers a critical edge by connecting them to a dynamic network of information, people and ideas. The company’s strength – delivering data, news and analytics through innovative technology, quickly and accurately – is at the core of the Bloomberg Professional service, which provides real time financial information to more than 319,000 subscribers globally. Bloomberg’s enterprise solutions build on the company’s core strength, leveraging technology to allow customers to access, integrate, distribute and manage data and information across organizations more efficiently and effectively. Through Bloomberg Government, Bloomberg New Energy Finance and Bloomberg BNA, the company provides data, news and analytics to decision makers in industries beyond finance. And Bloomberg News, delivered through the Bloomberg Professional service, television, radio, mobile, the Internet and three magazines, Bloomberg Businessweek, Bloomberg Markets and Bloomberg Pursuits, covers the world with more than 2,400 news and multimedia professionals at more than 150 bureaus in 73 countries. Headquartered in New York, Bloomberg employs more than 15,500 people in 192 locations around the world. For more information visit www.Bloomberg.com/now/

[burnt]

Here you go, Hamloc.

Time-of-Use Pricing
From To Summer Rate (May - Oct)
4:00 PM 5:00 PM on-peak rate 18 cents/kWh
5:00 PM 6:00 PM mid-peak rate 13.2 cents/kWh
6:00 PM 7:00 PM
7:00 PM 8:00 PM off-peak rate 8.7 cents/kWh

And price paid per KW is not even the worst of our electricity fiasco here in Ontario - when solar is producing at capacity and the wind turbines are cranking out more than the grid demands, guess what happens to balance out supply to demand?

They divert water around the turbines at Niagara Falls and slow down nuc generation, cutting out the cheapest, greenest source of electrical generation to keep the "pseudo-green" producers happy and paid their exorbitant rates! So follow the money.

And then when there is still excess power being generated, the powers cos. send surplus electricity to the US at about 1.5 CENTS PER KILOWATT HOUR!

This cost the Province of Ontario almost $1.1 billion for the first six months of 2015!

And then people wonder why businesses are closing their doors in Ontario and moving across the lake to Pennsylvania or Michigan to set up shop.

This is what you Albertans have to look forward to when Notley copies Ontario's green energy dream...

If you wanted to devise a plan to destroy an economy, you couldn't script it better than the Ontario Liberals have done.

[burnt]

"Levelised costs" - hahaha!

That must be another Liberal fabricated term like "stretch goal" LOL! "Stretch goal" was the term manufactured by our redoubtable Wynne when another one of her election promises vaporized right before our very eyes! "Well it was a stretch goal..."

[Hamloc]

Just for once Chuck2 instead of showing us articles from around the world look at what has and is happening in Canada. Ontario's government has cost it's citizens billions of dollars with its green energy fiasco, Alberta will do the same and Naomi Klein will come along and say it isn't near enough. Please wake up Canada!!!!

[chuckChuck]

Hamloc, All i did was present a view from a business perspective article.

"Among the country-level findings of the BNEF study are that onshore wind is now fully cost-competitive with both gas-fired and coal-fired generation, once carbon costs are taken into account, in the UK and Germany. In the UK, onshore wind comes in on average at $85 per MWh in the second half of 2015, compared to $115 for combined-cycle gas and $115 for coal-fired power; in Germany, onshore wind is at $80, compared to $118 for gas and $106 for coal."

Ontario is only one example out of hundreds around the world. If it has been mismanaged it is up to the people of Ontario to decide that at the ballot box.

But any generalized arguments about solar or wind not being viable options at this point are site and country specific. The point is solar and wind costs are coming down and becoming competitive.

Why not ask Brad Wall and Sask Power why they are investing in wind and solar? Perhaps you might be disappointed by the answer?

Burnt: I am pretty sure Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) is a commie plot and Bloomberg is a commie environmentalist front to make sure the hard working folks pay more for green energy. And if it is supported by a Liberal or NDP government it must be bad.

But that doesn't explain why Brad wall and Sask Power are building wind generators?

[Hamloc]

Chuck2 the price chart I looked at was the IESO price payment schedule for solar power in Ontario. Solardirectcanada was encouraging consumers to get their panels built and installed in 2015 to recieve the higher price schedule. This is the problem with most government subsidized schemes whether it be business subsidies or in this case solar power subsidies. There is always a way to work the system to your advantage. Just like the Chinese solar panels, the Globe and Mail article felt the chinese manufacturers would assemble them in India as an example to get around the tariff on chinese production.

Personally I think there are positive aspects to solar and wind power. What I see is a failed and overpriced system in Ontario and I see an Alberta Premier heading the same direction. I don't want a 300 billion dollar debt in Alberta. I also don't think closing down the well regulated oil industry in Canada while the very poorly regulated industries in Russia,Algeria,Iran and so on grow unabated. That end result will be far worse for Canada and the world. If the likes of Naomi Klein were really concerned about the planet they would lobby for that not for shutting down Canada and turning it into a basically communist state. Have a good day:-)

[greybeard]

Hydro puts you at the top of the list for greenest countries in the world.
Solar gets you some green votes.But do you get your ass booted out when taxes go up?

[oneoff]

The latest info about competitive wind power generated electricity comes from windmills well in excess of 100 meters in height

In fact up to 200 meters.

It assumes ideal siting; such as offshore or if onshore (ie. foundations of windmill anchored to land) then in areas known to have steady and relatively continuous strong air movement.

Now I've never heard any data repeated on agriville about just how this fits in Sask backyards.

My suspicion is that even those who champion solar and wind are about as eager to have those windmills on their property as a pipeline, or electrical grid or nuclear power plant or some acres of solar panels that are; in any event; sure to be placed where there's a few percent better siting values than the promoters properties anyway.

Sometimes its easy to talk cheap knowing that you are cheering for others to get the negative associated consequencies that are conveniently not mentioned.

[oneoff]

The latest info about competitive wind power generated electricity comes from windmills well in excess of 100 meters in height

In fact up to 200 meters.

It assumes ideal siting; such as offshore or if onshore (ie. foundations of windmill anchored to land) then in areas known to have steady and relatively continuous strong air movement.

Now I've never heard any data repeated on agriville about just how this fits in Sask backyards.

My suspicion is that even those who champion solar and wind are about as eager to have those windmills on their property as a pipeline, or electrical grid or nuclear power plant or some acres of solar panels that are; in any event; sure to be placed where there's a few percent better siting values than the promoters properties anyway.

Sometimes its easy to talk cheap knowing that you are cheering for others to get the negative associated consequences that are conveniently not mentioned.

[oneoff]

Somebody please comment on the suitability of a fully developed windfarm within a migratory bird flyway.

you know; with a string of those 140 meter tall structures that would be expected to impact hordes of birds at least twice per year. Maybe a lot more as I recall birds seemingly migrating the wrong direction when atmospheric conditions mustn't meet their instinctive requirements.

You gonna chance endangered whooping cranes; for instance; being put at pretty high risk with a row of pretty effective bird killers.

Not sure that much real thought goes into single issue agendas.

And also don't forget the carbon credits that should be factored into economics of supposedly competitive alternatives.

Thats a part of cost/benefit analysis.....if you want to be comparing apples to apples.

[oneoff]

Using the various costs per kwh (or Mwh) there appear to be orders of magnitude differences between Canadian figures and Germany and their neighbors.

I mean there are significant differences between quoted costs of 20.9 cent per kwh in current Ontario large scale projects

Versus

88 dollars per Mwh in German wind development. We don't know where any of these figures come from; nor if any currency conversions were done; nor what subsidies; nor what carbon credits or penalties for the alternatives were subjectively included or ignored.

So far these figures are pretty suspect; and should be scutinized as potential propaganda

[burnt]

The latest info about competitive wind power generated electricity comes from windmills well in excess of 100 meters in height

In fact up to 200 meters.

It assumes ideal siting; such as offshore or if onshore (ie. foundations of windmill anchored to land) then in areas known to have steady and relatively continuous strong air movement.

Now I've never heard any data repeated on agriville about just how this fits in Sask backyards.

My suspicion is that even those who champion solar and wind are about as eager to have those windmills on their property as a pipeline, or electrical grid or nuclear power plant or some acres of solar panels that are; in any event; sure to be placed where there's a few percent better siting values than the promoters properties anyway.

Sometimes its easy to talk cheap knowing that you are cheering for others to get the negative associated consequences that are conveniently not mentioned.

No problem, they said. Can't tip over, they said. Bring a bigger bulldozer to anchor it, they said...

[URL="http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/a-115-metre-high-wind-turbine-on-the-bruce-peninsula-begins-listing-facility-owners-tether-it"]http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/a-115-metre-high-wind-turbine-on-the-bruce-peninsula-begins-listing-facility-owners-tether-it[/URL]

That is 2 hrs. north of us. And 20 minutes south of us the things are shifting in the ground in a rocking motion, according to the electrical inspector who works this region.

And they don't call them bird blenders for no reason.

[FarmRanger]

The critical error in the so-called business analysis of "green energy" is the erroneous thinking around the phrase<b> "once carbon costs are taken into account" </b>

If you want to make conventional energy look bad, simply add an arbitrary cost to it and make the cost high enough to make your so-called green energy seem viable. The problem with this thinking is that China, the USA and your other competitors don't care that you've added this arbitrary cost to your own industries... they'll happily use the fuel Wynne and Trudeau will have taxed away from our industry's use. The bitter irony is that our industry will be expected to compete with what our gov't has arbitrarily made into a lower cost foreign competitor.

And then they wonder why industry is not expanding, or leaving Canada.

Regarding the fuzzy thinking of environmental costs of "green" versus conventional energy:
A duck killed in a tailings pond costs the oil industry $500 per, whereas we heavily subsidize the windmills that kill bald eagles.

[oneoff]

If someone took a look at the raw data from monitoring wind speeds at reasonable heights in SE Sask they might be surprised.

That doesn't mean they would necessarily show it.

Maybbe the reason why coal fired generation costs are increasing is because we spend "billions" to make it clean. Ever notice you don't get one damn bit of credit for that very costly effort.

Its probably just like the attack on glyphosate. The real motive is to get as close as possible to banning each and every chemical made by man.

Can't respect not disclosing self interests and personal agendas.