News   Apr 26, 2024
 1.6K     4 
News   Apr 26, 2024
 332     0 
News   Apr 26, 2024
 899     0 

Toronto, Capital of North America?

No solar power can make any money without huge government subsidy right now, at least in Canada, as the power generation cost is 5-10 times higher than conventional technology.

Not true...geo is solar. Stop thinking about generating electricity for a moment, and think about efficient use of energy instead.


The second hand smoke and the dirty pollutes from cars probably do use more harm that those limited coal plants so far away from major cities.

Actually, second hand smoke (technically referred to as ETS) doesn't have enough of anything in it to affect your health in any way. The anti-tobacco groups probably have pulled off the biggest propaganda coup in the history of the planet. Joseph Goebbels would have been proud.
 
Did you move to Toronto yesterday?

Before the Mike Harris conservative government electricity was regulated by the government and kept at 4.3 cents kwh/m. After de-regulation prices soared uncontrollably and have doubled since.

If you want to blame someone for the rising energy prices, you must blame the conservatives that radically changed the system in an ignorant dogmatic way just like it was done in California and elsewhere. Privatised electricity has never been more successful than public electricity anywhere, and the private component is the reason why we now pay such high electricity prices in Ontario.

The Green Energy Act is not responsible at all for the high prices, and strategically makes sense in Ontario. What Ontario used to do back when electricity was completely publicly run was to give preferential prices to manufacturers. Under the current system this is much difficult to do. A professor very close to me is in the Ontario Energy Board and participated in the privatisation process... he calls it one of the biggest mistakes in the province's history, even though back then he was mostly convinced by its supporters.

Why are you saying "privatized electricity"? Both Ontario Power Generation and Hydro One are 100% owned by the government. OPG accounts for the majority of electricity generation. Just because they are separated from being one company "Ontario Hydro" doesn't mean they are privately owned now.
 
You are right, 'de-regulation' is a better term for what ended up happening. The electricity market is a reality and is responsible for the soaring prices, but it didn't end up in the hands of privates because that would have only made things worse at that stage.
 
Yes, but McGuinty did was given all the contracts to Samsung in his self-glorified green campaign.

I am not against renewable energy, all I am saying is it is premature to commercialize wind and solar on the large scale at present. I spend $30 on hydro each month, so even if it doubles, it won't affect me that much. However, it does affect the competitiveness of Ontario as a major manufacturing base.

In term of solar technological, even China is years ahead of Canada. We hardly have anything.

The Samsung deal was not the best part of the program (should have done through a proper competitive bidding), but it is only small part of the program. As a matter of fact, the required domestic content in Ontario Fit/MicroFit systems gave a good boost to the local manufacturing and development of solar PV components. Another benefit of Fit/MicroFit is that Ontario government does not spend any money on buying equipment or maintaining the systems. For example, in Germany close to 50% of PV installation was covered by government.

China is years ahead of Canada? Something new to me... I usually come across new PV technologies and innovations coming from Germany, US, Japan, Korea, even Canada now.
 
Last edited:
No solar power can make any money without huge government subsidy right now, at least in Canada, as the power generation cost is 5-10 times higher than conventional technology.
I don't know how you made your 15% ROI.
The cost of solar power gets lower while the cost of non-renewables is getting higher; it is just matter of time when they reach parity. So, why not tho think strategically. And we are not talking about huge cost of polluting environment with coal/gas generated power.
 
China is years ahead of Canada? Something new to me... I usually come across new PV technologies and innovations coming from Germany, US, Japan, Korea, even Canada now.

That only means you are behind times. China produced half of the world's solar panels in 2010, although 90% is for exporting. Its dominance in the solar industry is so alarming that the US congress had to investigate the situation.

Oh, come on, there is no "even Canada now" part. Canada is not a major solar energy player globally at all. The top ten global solar power countries in the world are: Germany, Spain, Japan, US, Italy, Czech, Belgium, China, France and India. Canada is nowhere near top 10.
 
Last edited:
The cost of solar power gets lower while the cost of non-renewables is getting higher; it is just matter of time when they reach parity. So, why not tho think strategically. And we are not talking about huge cost of polluting environment with coal/gas generated power.

you are talking out of your imagination.
Natural gas for example, is at almost historic low price right now. I am not against renewables, but to say the cost of solar will be close to fossil fuel is just dreaming. It is nowhere near being close, most likely more than 5 times higher.
the pollution of natural gas is not that bad at all. Yes, solar power has little pollution but it is not continuous and we can't control output. It will always be used as a complementary source of energy
 
Could someone please remind me why Ontario, in these enormously fiscally trying times, does not pursue a cheaper clean coal power strategy? Isn't there a way to harnass that cheap source of energy in a more energy efficient manner?
 
Could someone please remind me why Ontario, in these enormously fiscally trying times, does not pursue a cheaper clean coal power strategy? Isn't there a way to harnass that cheap source of energy in a more energy efficient manner?

I doubt there is a such thing called "clean coal". Coal is more polluting that all other fuel sources. "clean coal" is more of a slogan in attempt to improve coal's image.
Ontario is slated to close down all coal plants by 2014, and it is in the process of converting existing coal plants in Lambton, Aticokan, Nanticoke and Thunder Bay into natural gas or biomass fuelled plants.

That being said, there is nothing wrong with using a low percentage of coal power when necessary and appropriate. Yes it has pollution, but did people stop driving cars because of pollution?
 
Last edited:
China produces 90% of everything; it doesn't mean it designs/innovates/develops these products. I am following the trends in PV technology and yet to come across any new solar technology that came out of China. BTW, my solar panels are developed and manufactured in Canada (Heliene) and my inverter is made in Germany (Kaco).

Re natural gas: where did you get your data from? I recall there is a small dip right now, but the 20-30 yr trends are up; it is NON-RENEWABLE! Remember (if you were around) cheap oil price back in early 90th. The cost of alternative renewable technologies does come down. Read the article that discusses this issue in California:

"The latest round of proposed contracts from a California utility for 250 MW of solar PV projects comes in below the projected price of natural gas."

It is already cheaper than nuclear power:

"Meanwhile, the cost of PV has already fallen well below that of nuclear and is set to fall further. The average retail price of solar cells as monitored by the Solarbuzz group fell from $3.50/watt to $2.43/watt over the course of the year, and a decline to prices below $2.00/watt seems inevitable. "

The only bit of info where I agree with you is that it is not a stable source of power, but it is becoming one of the major sources of energy. My own example--the solar power generates appr 25% of our consumed power. The latest technolgies are around 30% efficient and getting better and cheaper. Potentially, a rooftop PV system can cover close to 100% of electric consumption, consideing more efficient use of PV panels and more efficient consumption.
 
Last edited:
I doubt there is a such thing called "clean coal". Coal is more polluting that all other fuel sources. "clean coal" is more of a slogan in attempt to improve coal's image.
Ontario is slated to close down all coal plants by 2014, and it is in the process of converting existing coal plants in Lambton, Aticokan, Nanticoke and Thunder Bay into natural gas or biomass fuelled plants.

That being said, there is nothing wrong with using a low percentage of coal power when necessary and appropriate. Yes it has pollution, but did people stop driving cars because of pollution?

No, but they should.

I firmly believe we should live within our means, and that vision needs us to focus on renewable energy sooner rather than later.

If you understand economics you'll understand that prices of renewable electricity will come down when and ONLY when there is a large demand for it. Research and development without a parallel increased demand has never been enough to bring down the price of a product to the levels we need right now. The oil industry was built with gigantic government tax breaks and subsidies, because the infrastructure required to build it was ridiculous (wide paved roads reaching EVERY building in the country, gas stations in EVERY neighbourhood, highways, a car for EVERY person, etc). What we consider 'cheaper' technologies today (such as tar sand oil) would be much more expensive and less profitable if most of the population weren't chained to a system that was made to generate demand for it! What places like Ontario and Denmark (who will phase out coal in the coming years) are doing to different extents is having the balls to support renewable energies like governments in the past supported oil.

Renewable energies make a lot more sense than shale gas which pollutes aquifers irreparably when extracted, and tar sands which do the same thing and on top of that are incredibly pollutant (air) and inefficient.

But let me put it this way. In the U.S. 89% of households own at least one car. There are 2+ cars per household on average. Buying and installing a PV solar power that would take care of 80% of the electricity I use for the next 13-20 years would cost me CA$11,000. So about $700 a year, or $60 a month. In a society where people pay hundreds of dollars a month to drive, why is paying say $120 a month for electricity (For which you'd have to spend TWICE the amount of electricity my girlfriend and I do) which you can pay up front so bad?

Designing a city so that it's unlivable without spending $20,000 every 5 years in a new car is acceptable, with all the pollution that comes with... but designing one where you have to pay half as much every 16 years would destroy the economy? If most buildings covered some of their own electricity, energy from dams and wind could be used to power electric vehicles that would be cheaper to maintain and a lot more long-lasting that the public could use. The short-sightedness of people who don't understand economics or ecology are what's keeping this from becoming a reality.



P.S. Some of the world's leading scientists in harvesting solar power are here in Toronto, btw. The production capacity just hasn't been there for their work to become more relevant on a world stage - which should change over the coming years hopefully.
 
Buying and installing a PV solar power that would take care of 80% of the electricity I use for the next 13-20 years would cost me CA$11,000. So about $700 a year, or $60 a month. In a society where people pay hundreds of dollars a month to drive, why is paying say $120 a month for electricity (For which you'd have to spend TWICE the amount of electricity my girlfriend and I do) which you can pay up front so bad?

Funny you say $11,000 while this site says $30,000-$40,000:

Turning first to materials cost, plan on an investment of about $6-9 per watt of solar energy (the higher end, if you are paying for installation). The size of your house is largely irrelevant, but you’ll need to look at your recent electric bills and decide how much energy you use in a given month (on average) and how much direct sunlight you get. A rough range for upfront costs, including installation, for solar panels, inverter box, wiring, etc., is approximately $30-40,000 for a single family house, if you are looking to entire replace grid-based electricity with solar energy. Your particular needs may range higher or lower. You could also experiment with a do-it-yourself solar panel system, which is explored in another post. Be sure to shop around to get the best bids for a solar panel system, if you are buying from a retailer.

http://solarpanelspower.net/solar-panels/solar-panels-cost

Love my car btw. I don't know how I would get my kids to school without it. Do you have any better suggestions? Should I bicycle them there in the winter?
 
I think RC8 meant the cost of installing PV system in the next 13-20 yr, not today. Today even a 30-40K PV system (4-5kWt) will not cover the total electricity needs for a single family (unless you are a German family :) --a four person German household consumes only 4kWt a year). I believe cars will be with us indefinitely; I just speculate that they will not be fuel-powered for too long...
 
Sometimes I enjoy indulging in forum discussions like these. It's like bacon fat, you know it's bad for you but it just tastes so good.

kkgg7, I often hear people and often people who are more greatly concerned with business and economic issues make comments like the US is on the one hand cheaper for consumers and living, and on the other hand less risk adverse. I personally believe these two ideas to be accurate. The question is do these make the US a good place to do business? If consumers expect and demand low prices and the environment is tolerant of risk doesn't that make it a horrible place to do business? If Canada has a climate where consumers are tolerant of high prices and business is risk adverse doesn't that make it a great place to do business? I would never want to base or expand my business in the US if it is risk tolerant and adverse to high prices.
 
Sometimes I enjoy indulging in forum discussions like these. It's like bacon fat, you know it's bad for you but it just tastes so good.

kkgg7, I often hear people and often people who are more greatly concerned with business and economic issues make comments like the US is on the one hand cheaper for consumers and living, and on the other hand less risk adverse. I personally believe these two ideas to be accurate. The question is do these make the US a good place to do business? If consumers expect and demand low prices and the environment is tolerant of risk doesn't that make it a horrible place to do business? If Canada has a climate where consumers are tolerant of high prices and business is risk adverse doesn't that make it a great place to do business? I would never want to base or expand my business in the US if it is risk tolerant and adverse to high prices.

I know your logic but it is not necessarily true.

Canadians are more tolerant of higher prices for the same product because that's what they are always forced to pay. Information is very available these days, and do you think Canadians are happy to pay $1199 for a couch that is sold in the US for $899, to pay $600 to fly to Toronto to Vancouver while an American pays $250 from NYC to San Fran? We buy because they have no other option.

The comes to economic part. US companies can sell at cheaper price because of the massive demand. Business can still thrive despite fierce competition and low price. Consumer demand is also elastic. When price is low, they buy more and companies makes more profits. In Canada, consumers buy less due to higher prices. I for example go shopping a lot less than when I was living in Los Angeles, when everything was incredibly affordable. I go out for movies less, stop driving (insurance being 3 times higher), and probably buy 50% less clothes. Yes, consumers do adjust their behavior, and that affects companies' revenue and profit.

And more importantly, price is high in Canada almost always due to the lack of competition and higher government taxes. Do you think that's an environment that is better for business? In the short term, the lack of competition seems sweet - Air Canada, Rogers etc would have bankrupted 100 times if they do business like this in the US. But in the longer run, companies become complacent and less and less efficient. They don't have the incentive to innovate and cut costs because everything can just be passed to consumers. When there is new market player, everyone gets freaked out because their tradition lazy do-nothing business model will stop working. Think about why all Canadian retailers are so freaked out about the entrance of Target, because they know they can't compete with it and they know if better than anyone else.

For this, I applaud the current government for deregulating the markets such a telecom, retail etc, forcing market players to face reality and be more friendly with consumers. IMO, there are many other markets that need to be reformed, such as auto insurance and airlines. People always use Canada's smaller market (fixed costs spread over fewer consumers) as an excuse as if there is nothing companies can do to improve efficiency and make their services more affordable. But that's far from all the factors. The truth is the business environment doesn't provide any incentive for business to strive for cost efficiency, then why bother?

Honestly, Canada's market is a lot worse than the US both for consumers and companies, and it is a vicious cycle. Last year I was shopping for a tankless water heater (which saves energy by the way), and the prevailing market price is $1800-$2500 in the Toronto market. Then I bought one online for a US companies for $650 shipping and duty included. It is pretty much the same product, and I am not sure anyone can say "isn't it nice that companies are able to charge three time the price since consumers are willing to pay for that?" I don't think anywhere else a tankless waterheater sells for over $2,000, which is marketed as some sort of new cutting-edge technology. In fact, these products have been on the market for years and are what most families use in Asia and Europe (where water tanks are banned in many countries) and are very affordable. Should we interpret it as Canada is business friendly since the price is crazy?
 

Back
Top