For ChuckChuck

[Hamloc]

Chuck2, I just read a really good article in the Financial Post comment section by Jack Mintz: The public backlash is rising as the credibility of high-cost low-carbon policies collapses. Well written and expresses my thoughts exactly. Have a good day!

[binthere]

hurry and purchase your new tesla car and apply for your $14000.00 taxpayer subsidized rebate in ontario. after a similar program failed miserably wynne is trying it again. no help to reduce emissions but get to spend others money. the socialist way over and over again.

[sumdumguy]

Just want to share some information that I was shared to me at the show plast week in Regina. A large greenhouse operator adds CO2 to 5X or 2200 ppm so that his plants thrive. He says increasing CO2 is key.

[sumdumguy]

Natural News has the whole story about carbon generators. Chuckis should like these facts.

[chuckChuck]

Jack Mintz clearly wants to only blame green energy policies for the high costs. The reality is a lot more complicated. Read this full article and you will see that the problems included expensive upgrades to nuclear. Lots of of mismanagement by the Liberals is evident but green energy is only a small part of the additional costs because it is only a small part of the additional capacity.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/why-does-electricity-cost-so-much-in-ontario/article33453270/


Why is electricity so expensive?

Today’s high prices are largely the result of provincial policy decisions made during the 2000s.

When the Ontario Liberal Party came to power in 2003, the province’s electricity grid was aging and creaky, and Ontario had to import power to meet its needs. The province was also haunted by the memory of Ontario Hydro’s disastrously overbudget nuclear construction projects in the 1980s and 90s. What’s more, the Liberals had been elected in part on a promise to close down the province’s coal-fired power plants.

So the government went on a building spree, upgrading aging infrastructure and commissioning new natural gas, wind and solar plants to replace the coal plants.

But, wary of the previous cost overruns at Ontario Hydro, the government decided to outsource the work of building and running the new power plants to the private sector. The private sector would be responsible for cost overruns and other construction problems in exchange for 20-year contracts from the province. The contracts essentially guaranteed that the companies would receive a certain amount of revenue – no matter how much electricity their plants produced (though they would be paid more if the province used their electricity).

The first major wave of private power plants was fuelled with natural gas. Later plants were tied to the Green Energy Act, which provided lucrative terms for wind and solar plants in a bid to build a renewable-power industry in the province. One of the most famous deals was a sole-source contract with a Samsung-led consortium, which included locating factories building green-energy equipment in the province.

The cost of all this is passed on to ratepayers in the form of higher electricity bills. Auditor-General Bonnie Lysyk estimates that the “global adjustment charge” – the government’s term for the costs in the system above the market rate for electricity – accounts for some 70 per cent of the average electricity bill.

Ultimately, the province built more plants than it actually needed. In 2014, according to the Auditor-General, Ontario had the capacity to produce 30,203 megawatts of power – but only needed 15,959 on an average day. (Even on the busiest day of the year, the province only required 22,774 megawatts.)
Ontario’s available capacity vs. actual demand
Average demand
Peak demand
Available resources
05101520253035In gigawattsIn gigawatts20092010201120122013201415.88624.38030.24 0
THE GLOBE AND MAIL, SOURCE: office of the auditor general of ontario
data
share
×
Year Average demand Peak demand Available resources
2009 15.886 24.380 30.240
2010 16.232 25.075 29.030
2011 16.150 25.450 29.845
2012 16.085 24.636 28.603
2013 16.066 24.927 30.278
2014 15.959 22.774 30.203
Ontario’s available capacity vs. actual demand
download csv
×
Share this chart:
[Email]
https://s3.amazonaws.com/chartstg/Wr2aCFFAY3MTpMX3a/thumbnail.png


At the same time, demand for electricity in the province fell, partly because of the recession and the long-term upheaval in the manufacturing sector and partly because of government efforts to encourage Ontarians to conserve power.

So the province has a massive surplus of generating capacity, but because much of it is tied up in private, 20-year contracts, Ontarians have to pay for all that electricity – whether they need it or not.

In some cases, the province also made the situation worse with political meddling. Ahead of the 2011 election, for instance, then-premier Dalton McGuinty cancelled two unpopular natural-gas plants in Liberal-held ridings in Toronto suburbs and gave the companies new contracts to build plants in other locations – farther from the areas that would need the electricity. As a result, ratepayers ended up on the hook for another $1.1-billion.

And Ontarians are still paying for the nuclear plants Ontario Hydro built in the eighties and nineties. When Ontario Hydro was broken up, its debt was hived off into an item called the “stranded debt,” which is being paid down by electricity users.

In 2015, Ms. Lysyk calculated that Ontarians had paid $37-billion more than market price for electricity from 2006 to 2014 and would pay another $133-billion extra by 2032.

Some of this cost was unavoidable: The province has to pay for fixed contracts that guarantee Ontarians have access to a steady supply of power. But there is no doubt, given the vast amount of surplus generating capacity, that the province has overpaid unnecessarily.

[chuckChuck]

Hamloc. Take a look at the cost of renewables in this study done by the US Energy Information Administration for new capacity coming on stream in 2022.

http://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf

You will see that Wind and solar are very competitive with gas and much cheaper than coal with carbon capture and storage.

Of course they are intermittent sources so we still need gas and hydro for baseload.

[Hamloc]

Chuck2, if solar is so inexpensive why does Ontario's new Feed in Tariff price schedule from the IESO have such high prices for new 20 year contracts? As of Jan.1, 2017 rooftop solar prices start at 31 cents a kwh for 6 kw systems down to 20.7 cents for large 100-500 kw installations. Ground mount solar systems start at 21 cents a kwh down to 19.2 for larger installations. Onshore wind is 12.5 cents per kwh. And as you pointed out they all require equivalent production capacity of nuclear or natural gas. If it is so cheap to produce solar and wind energy why does the IESO offer such high prices? Also remember in 2010 the IESO payed 80 cents a kwh for power generated by small rooftop solar installations of 6 kw or less. Actual prices payed in Canada today are what matter.

[blackpowder]

"Cheaper than coal with carbon capture and storage"

A real thing coupled to a make believe market.

[oneoff]

You will see that Wind and solar are very competitive with gas and much cheaper than coal with carbon capture and storage.

Of course they are intermittent sources so we still need gas and hydro for baseload.

There's a "have your cake and eat it too" statement at the conclusion of that post


And when a utility gives preferential access to the current less than 1% solar producer in Ontario (read that first right of refusal; 80.2 cents/Kwh for a couple decades and guaranteed non disconnectable connection) then the baseload supplier can called to be depended on for everything or nothing!!!.

In previous cut and pastes from the Globe and Mail ....it was quoted that 38% of Ontario electrical generation capacity was actually responsible for 68 % of Ontarios actual generating production. I never cold see how that could be. But this last article from the same news source claims that Ontario has ended up with twice as much electrical generating capacity as it currently needs and consumers pay for that potential power production whether it is used or not.

This is a perfect example of how; when given enough data; and ommitting selected key factors; you can get the data to prove any point of view you wish to.

It also can be used to ignore serious problems; deflect scutiny from areas that are the real problems and provide incomplete information that is then commonly used to base agendas on that have little current merit.

For example; how completely misguided was it (on an electrical generating need basis) for Ontario to shut down installed coal fired generating capacity; then in 20 years end up with twice their needed power production capacity; that nuclear and hydro are still now largely supplying; and have the privately built generating capacity all being paid for, but apparently not being utilized by anyone.

Now for those wannabe electrical planners responsible for this Ontario electrical fiasco....why don't they just invest all their pension plans in an electrical grid connected to someplace like Sask and provide power delivered for a few cents a Kwh. (Laughing all the way to the next absurd plan we will actually pay for)

And for example; still Ontario solar power production comes in at less than 1% of the provinces electrical consumption. Where were the priorities and what lessons are the slower adopters supposed to take from this apparent disasterous Ontario experience..

[Hamloc]

The Financial Post comments section has another good read today. Charles Lammam and Taylor Jackson: How B.C.'s formerly 'revenue neutral' carbon tax turned into another government cash grab. Chuck2, you have constantly held up how all carbon taxes should be modelled after B.C.'s and I will agree it is the best of the lot. But as is the case with most government programs and taxes in time they all lose their initial focus and become wasteful because there is no performance incentive. Financial success of government initiatives do not matter because if they fail they just impose another tax to pay for the failure, in the private sector these kind of mistakes cause the business to fail.

[chuckChuck]

Lots of mismanagement in Ontario going back to the Harris government. But trying to lay the blame on solar and wind as the only problem is a stretch.

How did they end up with twice the capacity they need? That makes absolutely no sense. Consumption must have dropped with the loss of manufacturing jobs and a weak economy after the recession of 2008 2009. But twice as much electricity as they need with fixed long term contracts? Who would do that?


But we have an example in Saskatchewan of a Conservative premier who was willing to spend 1.2 billion on carbon capture and storage at Boundary to extend the life of coal fired electricity? That doesn't make sense either.

[sumdumguy]

It is wasteful because carbon is not a problem. We need all the carbon we can get to produce food and oxygen. Now they are complaining that the seas are in jeopardy because there is not enough oxygen Duh!

[Oliver88]

It appears that even Ontario polls now prioritize REDUCING energy bills as their #1 priority.
Of course this is Wynne and Justin's lowest priority.

When Liberal voters in Ontario are getting outraged with high hydro bills you know that a basic convenience of heating your home is important.
Some jurisdictions in eastern Canada are seeing an increase in wood being burnt due to expensive hydro so now there is talk about regulating burning wood due to health risks with the smoke!!.....when will the madness end?

[oneoff]

The same madness about ending up with twice the electrical energy needed comes from planners who put way too many eggs in a basket. Just having a plan and selling it can be real easy; but there are two ways to pay for such costs.

Add to current debt and let the kids face the paying.

Or pay for it now by facing the costs upfront. The carrots for those who stand to benefit (and the rest of the consumers pay the bill eg 80.2cents/Kwh) is the misinformation and fake news way.