|
Ontario Electricity Rates to Rise 46% over the next 5 years (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Swamper |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orko
The conservatives are promising to get rid of the HST, and debt retirement charge on electricity if elected. According to they promo flyers, the debt was already paid off, and they are still charging it!?
http://www.ontariopc.com/issues/home-energy/ |
It is NOT paid off. I wish I had the link from about a month ago that described it all in detail with numbers and dates but thus far this is all I could come up with quickly. I think it was a Globe article.
Either way, Hudak will win since McGuinty has had way too many ups under his watch.
Hudak’s pledge on hydro debt ‘reckless,’ Duguid says
LINK
OTTAWA—Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak’s pledge to stop forcing Ontario residents to pay for hydro debt is a “reckless” vow that will saddle the province with $14 billion in unpaid debt, Liberal Energy Minister Brad Duguid says.
Hudak has pledged to end debt retirement charges for residential customers — saving them about $76 a year — and vows to stick with that promise even if a forensic audit shows big debt bills are still outstanding.
“Under my leadership, the debt retirement charge will come off the residential hydro bill. Families have paid enough . . . we’re going to get it done,” Hudak told reporters during a stop in Ottawa Wednesday.
Hudak said the charge was meant to pay off $7.8 billion in debt from “legacy” hydro projects of the 1980s. But to date, the charge has collected almost $10 billion, he said.
Under a Tory government, the charge would end for home hydro customers and the task of paying for any outstanding debt would fall to Ontario Power Generation, Hydro One and local utilities, he said.
But Duguid branded it an ill-conceived proposal that would have profound implications for provincial finances.
“What’s he’s proposing is absolutely reckless. He’s suggesting that somehow or another we can just say ‘poof’ and the debt is gone,” Duguid said in an interview.
“The repercussions of that are serious, either adding $14 billion to our deficit and debt on provincial books, or recovering it in cuts to health care and education.”
Duguid says the Tories themselves are to blame for the so-called stranded hydro debt and the debt retirement charge slapped on hydro customers in 2002.
“A lot of it was created when Mr. Hudak was sitting in cabinet. They started collecting this charge and they didn’t apply it to the debt,” Duguid said.
Since taking power, he said the Liberals have taken about $1 billion a year since taking office off the hydro debt load. It now stands at about $13.6 billion.
With the race well underway for the fall election, Hudak pitched his party’s “Changebook” platform to an Ottawa crowd Wednesday while taking aim at Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty.
But Hudak was forced to pause at one point when he was interrupted by protesters sporting green helmets denouncing his party’s green energy policies.
Meanwhile in the Commons Wednesday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper appeared to be hinting that he didn’t expect McGuinty to be around after fall election.
Asked about the federal health accord with the provinces, which expires in 2014, Harper said: “I do look forward to discussing this matter with the premier of Ontario in the future, whoever that may be.”
This isn’t the first time Harper has implied that he’d prefer another premier in Ontario. In 2006, shortly after taking power, Harper showed up at an Ontario Conservative party fundraiser and introduced then-leader John Tory as “the next premier of Ontario.”
The premier’s brother, Ottawa South MP David McGuinty, said he wasn’t surprised by Harper’s latest remark and that he expects the Prime Minister to do all he can to help get Hudak elected premier.
“He has interfered in the past and he will interfere in the future,” said David McGuinty, who believes that the large number of cabinet ministers from past Ontario Conservative governments — Jim Flaherty, John Baird, Tony Clement — will be an extra incentive for the Prime Minister to throw his weight around in this fall’s election campaign.
A spokesperson for the Prime Minister said that critics were making too much of the off-the-cuff remark. |
|
|
| malek |
| Isn't Hydro privatized?? |
|
|
| jchung52 |
Being in the solar industry it is truly sad to see how Hudack will put large smear campaigns on the microFIT program claiming it is the reason why your hydro rates are going up. Not true at all. Ontario's power grid is obsolete and needs refurbishing. Who will pay for that? Hudak wants to focus on nuclear power, costing billions. Who will pay for that? It really gets me how he claims that the FIT program is the main cause for the hikes in hydro and will cut the program as soon as he gets in power. Canada is so behind in the renewable energy sector. Wind I agree is not feasible for Ontario but solar is such a reliable energy source that having micro generating systems can help relieve strain off our grid reducing the need to pump high voltage from nuclear or the dams.
Take Germany for example. They launched a feed-in-tariff program over ten years ago!! Solar is so integrated into their system that nearly every roof (suitable for solar) has been used. In Ontario, just like Germany, the FIT rate is assessed every two years determining if the current rate is sustainable. It is currently 80.2 cents/kWh. This rate is set to cover the costs of a system ($25,000-70,000), maintenance, insurance, and other related costs at a fixed rate contract of 20 years. Income per year ranges from $3000-10,000 / year resulting in a payback period of 7-9 years. Solar panels are designed/constructed to last over 25 years degrading 1% / year. Once they are installed, they require very little maintenance and have no negative effect compared to nuclear, wind, coal, and hydroelectric dams. As long as the sun rises and sets, there will always be a clean energy being produced by these systems.
Toronto receives almost receives as much solar radiation as Miami but has the benefit of cooler temperatures allowing solar panels operate more efficiently. So claiming that solar doesn't work in Ontario is false.
Sorry if this was all a mish mash of info but I didn't have time to organize things into better points. I just wanted to offer a different view to the solar program. Manufacturing jobs have increased (ex. a silicon factory in New Market was near shutting down but now employs over 400 due to the FIT program; Canadian Solar in Cambridge employs over 400 and exports panels worlwide), foreign investment has been pouring into Ontario (my company alone has over $100 million invested), and the obvious benefit of the program being integrating a clean, reliable energy system into the grid.
:cool: |
|
|
| Sly_Guy |
| power generated off of solar, even if full coverage of all available surface areas is possible still wouldn't be enough to satisfy our energy needs. A mix of renewables is desirable, but the bulk of the power production will still be coal or nuclear. And given the choice between the two, nuclear is far cleaner in terms of the ability to contain the by products. |
|
|
| jchung52 |
| quote: | | According to two recent studies by Queen's University, solar power production in SE Ontario could potentially yield as much energy as all US nuclear reactors combined. These findings may come as a shock to anyone not directly involved with solar energy, but in fact, the sun is itself an incalculably large nuclear reactor capable of producing vast amounts of continuous energy uninhibited. The solar energy potential that earth receives in just one minute rivals all the world's nuclear power stations put together. The two Queen's University studies explored how this potential may someday be turned into a reality. The first study, led by Professor Joshua Pearce, concluded that if enough choice rooftops in Southeastern Ontario installed solar technology, the province could generate 5 gigwawatts of free energy - enough to power 5% of Ontario's energy requirements. By contrast, "all the coal plants in all of Ontario produce just over 6 gigawatts," according to Pearce. However, he is quick to note that the "sun doesn't always shine," suggesting that other renewable energy solutions would have to pick up the slack. With the addition of biomass, hydro, and wind, "southeastern Ontario could easily cover its own energy needs." |
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com...energy-output?c
I'm not saying we should just rely on solar.. A mix of energy sources is ideal but considering the solar potential on Ontario, we shouldn't smear he renewable energy industry just because Hudak says its raising our hydro bills. The majority of us in the solar industry are confident he won't just cut the solar program out of Ontario, scaring away foreign investment, manufacturing jobs, future R&D...we are however anxiously waiting for October to see where Ontario's energy production will move towards with his new policies. I guess we'll see in a few months
PS my company is offering a no cost solar program (earn income from the FIT program without the investment). If you own a property that you think is suitable for solar, shoot me a pm /endplug |
|
|
| Sly_Guy |
| quote: | Originally posted by jchung52
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com...energy-output?c
I'm not saying we should just rely on solar.. A mix of energy sources is ideal but considering the solar potential on Ontario, we shouldn't smear he renewable energy industry just because Hudak says its raising our hydro bills. The majority of us in the solar industry are confident he won't just cut the solar program out of Ontario, scaring away foreign investment, manufacturing jobs, future R&D...we are however anxiously waiting for October to see where Ontario's energy production will move towards with his new policies. I guess we'll see in a few months
PS my company is offering a no cost solar program (earn income from the FIT program without the investment). If you own a property that you think is suitable for solar, shoot me a pm /endplug |
5% is woefully small, but that isn't the whole story about solar. The problem with solar is not just it's power output, but the cost to produce. Each solar panel is basically a small version of the photoelectric experiment hooked up to a circuit. But because the more surface area you have, the more power you generate, you need to maximize the circuitry in that space which is quite expensive to do. Add to that the costs of manufacturing the semi-conductor material which is expensive to do and prone to defect, and the potential of damage to the weatherproofing, and you've got expensive little items for both upkeep and production. This is what holds solar back more than anything else.
When it comes to renewables the goal is to chip away at our energy requirements with clean solutions more than it is to find an absolute replacement, but solar, more than any other renewable, is the least cost-effective. A solar panel on every roof is a great idea, but at current technological levels, it's financially impractical, and the technology required might not even be within the realm of the solar industry to fix. |
|
|
| VDub |
^^^
Well yes but just like everything else, the more these systems are installed, the cheaper it gets to install them...
Justin... Pm sent... |
|
|
| Sly_Guy |
| quote: | Originally posted by VDub
^^^
Well yes but just like everything else, the more these systems are installed, the cheaper it gets to install them...
Justin... Pm sent... |
it's not installation though. A solar panel manufacturer needs to purchase semi-conducting silicon, and the manufacturer of the silicon has to find ways to reduce the cost of production before solar can be widespread.
Problem is, we already use lots of silicon is our electronics, but even with the demand for it being high, it continues to be a high priced commodity by virtue of the difficulty in production. This snag is one of those money-pit type R/D investments that may have no end in sight. Like say, cancer research.....we can pour money into it, but we have no idea when or even if we'll see a payoff.
The invisible hand of the market cannot trump physics, chemistry, and engineering. |
|
|
| jchung52 |
Costs are already extremely low per panel.. close to $1/watt (by 2013 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environme...anel-price-drop). Currently costs are about $1.25-1.50. Based on a 250watt panel @ $1.50/watt = $375 a panel. a 250 watt panel can produce approx (using a 3 kW system efficiency- the larger the system size, the more efficient the panel runs) 330 kWh a year. At say $0.08/kWh on your bill, that is $26 of electricity/panel/year. Therefore a 14 yr payback period out of a 25 yr performance warranty. A 250 watt requires 18 sq ft. That was just a quick simple comparison (other factors involved of course) but costs really aren't that high per panel esp as predictions show in the near future:
| quote: | | To compare the relative cost of solar – usually described in terms of the dollar price of each watt of peak capacity – and other energy sources, analysts consider factors such as upfront expenditure, fuel prices, maintenance and discount rates to calculate the "levelised" cost of each unit of energy. The report predicts that, with continued support in the short term, the levellised cost of large-scale solar will be no higher than retail energy prices by 2016-19. This suggests that within 10 years companies with large electricity demands will find it cheaper to install unsubsidised solar than to buy energy via the grid in the traditional way. |
|
|
|
| jchung52 |
Some more food for thought...
| quote: | There has been much effort made in the media to lead the public to believe that their electricity bills have been spiralling due to the cost of subsidies to wind and solar initiatives of our energy conservation programs. The 80 cents/kilowatt hour (kWh) for solar is frequently cited as the greatest offender, even though that rate only applies to rooftop solar with a capacity of 10 kW or less. In total, such installations currently amount to just 34 MW out of the 37,000 MW of installed generation in the province. Not mentioned are the subsidies paid to our private natural gas generators, or those paid to Bruce Power, when the market price doesn’t meet their guaranteed price (which is almost all the time). The latter subsidies involve 70% of the global adjustment monies paid out, simply because they pay for the delivery of much more power. In fact, the Ontario Power Authority paid out $1.35 billion in 2010 to meet gas and nuclear power purchase agreements.
So how significant are the subsidies to renewable energy and the monies paid for conservation in a typical residential electricity bill anyway? To answer that we had better clarify what a typical electricity rate is per kilowatt hour delivered to your home. There has been much confusion about that as well. A typical electrical bill consists of a charge per kWh of electricity used, plus a charge for transmission and distribution, plus a fixed fee to the utility, plus a regulatory charge, plus a debt retirement charge, plus HST, less the 10% the Province has just given us in the clean energy benefit. It is a complicated system to be sure. To get an estimate of a representative rate, we looked at a typical home that heats with natural gas and uses 800 kWh of electricity per month, and we compared that to a similar house with electric heat that uses typically 2500 kWh of electricity per month (averaged over 12 months). Although the costs per month obviously varied ($105 vs. $303) the cost of electricity per kWh “all in” was the same, about 13 cents. So how much of that is due to renewables and conservation? In 2010, the Ontario Power Authority paid electricity resource costs of $317 million for conservation programs, and $269 million for renewables. That is a lot of money – but you must realize that it is recovered over a total Ontario consumption in 2010 of 142 terawatt hours (that’s 142,000,000,000 kWh), which amounts to 0.4 cents per kWh (split roughly equally between conservation and renewable subsidies). So the cost of conservation and all the renewable subsidies in 2010 amounted to 0.4 cents of the 13 cents we paid for a kWh in our homes. A significant amount, perhaps, but hardly the bogeyman that it is so often made out to be. In fairness, it must be acknowledged that this 0.4 cent amount will rise as more green energy comes on line in future years, but in 2010 that is what it was. During these times when we are publicly discussing a long-term electrical energy plan, I think it is important to be honest about the current cost of electricity. |
http://www.betterfarming.com/online...-%E2%80%99-4204
ECONOMY
- The worldwide demand for solar energy is greater than its supply.
- The global solar energy industry generated over $100 billion in global revenue in 2010.
- The global market for solar power is expanding at a double digit pace.
- Solar power is the only form of energy whose costs are continuously declining.
- Averaged over 30 years, there has been a 7% annual reduction in the price of photovoltaic solar cells.
- Ontario's clean energy economy has attracted more than $20 billion in investment.
- Solar power is not subject to price fluctuations from political instability or the colatility of traditional energy markets.
- During hours or peak enery consumption (11AM-6PM), solar power can offset 40% of the power burden.
- Ontario's 4.600 solar projects produced enough energy to power 30,000 homes.
- When compared to the costs of other alternative energy sources, Solar PV will cost 71 cents more a month on a typical residential electricity bill each year through 2018.
ENVIRONMENT
- Energy consumption accounts for 84% of global carbon emissions.
- The world's demand for energy will increase by over 40% in the next twenty years.
- Canada's per energy consumption is among the highest in the world.
- Canada is the world's 8th largest emitter of greenhouse gases.
- Canada's demand for energy is projected to increase 33% in 14 years.
- Solar energy is the cleanest, most abundant, renewable energy source available.
- Solar energy does not produce any air, water or noise pollution.
- Solar energy has little impact on wildlife and ecosystems.
- Solar energy does not create any hazardous waste.
- Coal-fired generation is the biggest source of air pollution in Ontario.
- 1 kilowatt of power generated by solar panels prevents 150 pounds of coal from being mined.
- 1 kilowat of power generated by solar panels will prevent approximately 300 pounds of carbon dioxide from being released into the air.
JOBS
- Over 13,000 jobs have been created by Ontario's 2009 Green Energy Act.
- More than 8,000 people in Ontario are currently employed due to the solar photovoltaic industry.
- Solar creates more jobs per megawatt and per dollar invested than any other energy source.
- Solar PV in Ontario creates 12 times more jobs than nuclear per unit of energy produced.
- Solar PV in Ontario creates 15 times more jobs than natural gas or coal per unit of energy produced.
- Jobs created by PV cost 4-6 times less than jobs created by nuclear, natural, gas or coal.
- Ontario's plan to build solar PV infrastructure through 2018 will create more than 74,000 person years of employment in the province.
FUTURE
- Canada's power grid needs a $293 billion dollar upgrade to maintain aging facilities and meet rising energy demand.
- Over the next 20 years, Ontario will need to replace 80% of its electricity generating capacity.
- Ontario is committed to shutting down all its coal-fired power stations by 2014.
- Effective returns on a solar system investment range from 5-15% by year.
- Payback for a solar system investment is between 9 and 15 years.
- The Pembina institute concluded that investing in renewable energy would save Ontarians money within 15 years.
- Solar photovoltaic electricity is estimated to drop below the cost of coal electricity by 2020.
- By 2030, soalr electricity is likely to cost half what coal electricity does.
- By 2025, the solar energy could displace 15-31 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions in Ontario.
Taken from shineontario.com
Also, I would like to add the $7billion Samsung deal...Ontarians aren't paying $7billion for the deal, Samsung is investing that much into developing manufacturing here. Hudak needs to stop smearing the solar program for political gain.
In conclusion: that 80.2 cents per kWh you hear about "you" paying for only represents 0.4 cents out of 13 cents... 80 cents per kWh are only for systems under 10 kW in size (800 sq ft). The large solar projects you hear about are only being paid 44 cents/kWh. So 3x or so what you buy at.
Anyways, thought I'd offer some non-conservative/media fueled facts.
Have a sunny day :p |
|
|
| exraver |
Evergreen Solar files for bankruptcy
Evergreen Solar has had a rough year. In January, the company announced that it would be laying off 800 employees at its plant in Devens, Mass., and moving those jobs to a production facility in China. Yesterday, the company took another turn for the worse with the announcement of a bankruptcy filing.
The company, which has been around since the 1990s, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on Monday. A CNBC.com article lists two main reasons for the filing: competition from cheaper Chinese products and the reduction of solar subsidies in Italy, Germany and other European countries.
This morning, shares of Evergreen Solar are down nearly 13 percent to $0.157 per share. In late 2007, shares of the renewable energy company were trading at an all-time high of $113.10.
In other solar company news, shares of First Solar are down 2 percent so far today and down 20.1 percent year-to-date. SunPower, another major player in the U.S. solar industry, is doing quite well. The company’s stock prices are up more than 22 percent so far this year.
Dotcom bust in 2000, housing market in 2007, what's next, renewable energy? |
|
|
| VDub |
I blame Haliburton and big oil for all of the worlds problems...
What the populace needs is more education on solar energy. That and better marketing!!! |
|
|
|
|
