News   Sep 13, 2019
 1.4K     0 
News   Sep 13, 2019
 1.7K     3 
News   Sep 13, 2019
 1.3K     9 

The Provincial Liberal's Green Legacy?

Riverdale Rink Rat

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
2,774
Reaction score
270
Location
Back to East York... Alas!
Or reduce the price to Ontario businesses and homes to increase supply to match demand. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/ontario-drives-manufacturers-away-with-overpriced-electricity/article14854752/

Some good stats here http://www.windontario.ca/ For example, 4% of our power is from wind energy, yet it costs us 20% of our electrical bill.
Wasn't the whole point of the high rates to reduce demand and switch to renewable? Now we want to increase demand?

Beez -- don't you actually mean increase demand to match supply?

And -- why do we export it at a loss?

And -- why do we care if the subsidy goes to a big company or a small company, if what we actually want is to reduce the subsidy? Why is the subsidy not on a cost-plus system which would lower rates if the wind power is as competitive as everyone says?

IMHO, the green energy program is working about how the government wanted it to work -- tons of building of capacity, lowering of demand, offlining all coal and as much nat gas as possible. The whole point from the beginning was that your electricity bill needed to go up. Not completely certain the government wants to defend it as such, but from the perspective of the people who put this plan together, it's working just as planned (except maybe selling the surplus power at a loss, which I still don't quite get -- if it's surplus, how is selling at anything over zero not counted as a gain?)
 

Admiral Beez

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
7,208
Reaction score
1,519
Why is the subsidy not on a cost-plus system which would lower rates if the wind power is as competitive as everyone says?
Because, AIUI, the suppliers of wind power have been guaranteed a rate for their electricity that is much higher than the cost of electricity produced by conventional means (hydro, nuclear, natural gas).
 

Riverdale Rink Rat

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
2,774
Reaction score
270
Location
Back to East York... Alas!
Because, AIUI, the suppliers of wind power have been guaranteed a rate for their electricity that is much higher than the cost of electricity produced by conventional means (hydro, nuclear, natural gas).
I believe you're correct. I'm advocating changing to a cost-plus pricing scheme. The Ontario gov't didn't foresee the huge drop in cost for renewable energy when they signed the contracts.
 

Riverdale Rink Rat

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
2,774
Reaction score
270
Location
Back to East York... Alas!
Because it's not covering its cost.
Electricity w/o storage is like an airplane seat. Selling it at anything above marginal cost of transmission - not generation - should still be revenue positive vs. the alternative. If the price is below the cost to transmit, you would just let it dissipate.

Putting the cost to generate on that marginal revenue is a bit of an accounting game - you'd rather not have the added revenue? Even though you can't turn off the nuke plants?
 

Admiral Beez

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
7,208
Reaction score
1,519
Electricity w/o storage is like an airplane seat. Selling it at anything above marginal cost of transmission - not generation - should still be revenue positive vs. the alternative. If the price is below the cost to transmit, you would just let it dissipate.

Putting the cost to generate on that marginal revenue is a bit of an accounting game - you'd rather not have the added revenue? Even though you can't turn off the nuke plants?
No, I'd rather we decrease the price Ontarians pay when there is excess capacity, thus increasing usage to match supply. Ontario manufacturers and other businesses are paying much higher rates for electricity than they do in many US States and Canadian provinces. Reduce their electricity cost to generate more business output and jobs. Where's the downside?
 

Riverdale Rink Rat

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
2,774
Reaction score
270
Location
Back to East York... Alas!
No, I'd rather we decrease the price Ontarians pay when there is excess capacity, thus increasing usage to match supply. Ontario manufacturers and other businesses are paying much higher rates for electricity than they do in many US States and Canadian provinces. Reduce their electricity cost to generate more business output and jobs. Where's the downside?
Downside would be still using coal.

I'm not disageeing with you, really, unless we subsidize a new AL plant. But you're robbing Peter to pay Paul. The whole point of the renewable subsidy was to generate new business output and jobs in that industry. The downside is your electricity bill is higher, the upside that your lungs no longer burn on summer days.

I have many issues with the Ont Libs' meddling in business for political reasons, but this one I kind of understand, even if they executed with their usual hamhandedness.

Why, oh why, can we not have a competant fiscally conservative party in Ontario? Is it too much to ask?
 

salsa

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 27, 2013
Messages
7,983
Reaction score
6,970
Location
North York
Queen’s Park moves to silence dissent on electricity
Queen’s Park is set to fully take over all decision-making regarding the province's energy monopolies by solidifying its control over the province’s energy regulator, the Ontario Energy Board (OEB), with the recent passing of Bill 112. In doing so, Ontario is shutting down the last arena of independent public review of the billions of dollars being spent by the province and its many publicly owned utilities.

The legislation, “Strengthening Consumer Protection and Electricity System Oversight Act,” would deny independent intervenors the funds needed to hire the lawyers and experts needed at these hearings, effectively blocking their participation.
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2016/01/04/queens-park-moves-to-silence-dissent-on-electricity.html
 

Tuscani01

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
5,126
Reaction score
1,368
No, I'd rather we decrease the price Ontarians pay when there is excess capacity, thus increasing usage to match supply. Ontario manufacturers and other businesses are paying much higher rates for electricity than they do in many US States and Canadian provinces. Reduce their electricity cost to generate more business output and jobs. Where's the downside?
I disagree. We are paying more, but we have a much more cleaner and reliable grid thanks to it. Lucky for us, those US states and Canadian Provinces are suffering from the same issues we did before. They will all have to face skyrocketing hydro rates eventually. Ontario is already going through the growing pains and is a step above the rest.

I mean, heres the news from South of the border:

http://gizmodo.com/the-price-of-electricity-in-the-u-s-is-about-to-skyroc-1568384997
 

Admiral Beez

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
7,208
Reaction score
1,519
The whole point of the renewable subsidy was to generate new business output and jobs in that industry. The downside is your electricity bill is higher,
It's not a real downside to me, I've reduced my usage like the above chart shows, and I can afford the increase. However, Ontario businesses cannot, especially manufacturers with large electricity needs. What's the point in overpaying for energy to create some jobs for Samsung et al when our factories are rendered uncompetitive, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/ontarios-surging-electricity-prices-endanger-domestic-manufacturing/article27740995/

And the subsidy just seems like dirty politics. http://www.windontario.ca/ "Members of the Liberal party are profiting from Ontario’s wind energy. In 2004, Mike Crawley, the (then) President for the Ontario Liberals, was awarded a wind power contract that guarantees his company $66,000 a day for a total of $1/2 Billion dollars. Since then, Crawley has been awarded additional Wind Project contracts. Crawley is currently President of the Federal Liberal Party."
 

Riverdale Rink Rat

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
2,774
Reaction score
270
Location
Back to East York... Alas!
Saw this on twitter today.

View attachment 62943
That's quite cool, but I'm still struggling with the -0.2 on the 'export' line. We pay someone to take our electricity? Maybe because it'll hurt the lines to not be active? If anyone can offer a clear explanation, I'd be grateful.

ETA: From Beez' link -- hahahahahaha....

"For the record:

This site is not anti-wind energy, but attempts to convey its path of implementation in Ontario.

Success of wind energy is the result of:
Comprehensive studies and business plans;
Turbines built where wind speeds are high;
Turbines built away from populated areas;
Promotion of competition to get the cheapest rates.

The Ontario Liberal Party did none of this."

>> If you're not 'anti-wind energy', you probably shouldn't retouch photos to show what the pristine farmlands and Wolfe Island would look like without windmills. 'Cause, much as I like Calatrava bridges, I think the windmills look cool. And (with the notable exception of higher rates) that seems to be the website's main issue with the windmills... i.e., that they're unsightly.

>> Probably not a popular opinion, but I'm cool with higher prices and reduced demand. It's Ontario's piece of the energy usage drop puzzle, and I used to live in France where prices are off the charts compared to North America. I'd rather the cash didn't go to Samsung, but meh. Right now, apparently they're in need... ;)
 
Last edited:

Admiral Beez

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
7,208
Reaction score
1,519
Electricity w/o storage is like an airplane seat. Selling it at anything above marginal cost of transmission - not generation - should still be revenue positive vs. the alternative. If the price is below the cost to transmit, you would just let it dissipate.

Putting the cost to generate on that marginal revenue is a bit of an accounting game - you'd rather not have the added revenue? Even though you can't turn off the nuke plants?
I see you're still struggling with this. For starters, outside of nuclear, you can reduce and increase output from all sources of electricity. For hydro, you just divert water from the turbines, same goes for natural gas and diverting steam from turbines, and for windpower you alter the pitch to make the blades slip the wind. Solar is trickier to manage unless you have directional panels but it's a tiny part of the grid regardless.

We could likely shut down or significantly reduce these sources and focus on the 57% of the power below from nuclear.



Thus, if we're making surplus power we should be reducing production at the non-nuclear generators. However, the private energy producers, especially the wind turbine operators in Ontario, including the Federal Liberal party leader per the article I posted earlier, have zero incentive to reduce supply since they receive a guaranteed price from Ontario tax payers regardless of the market price or demand.
 

Riverdale Rink Rat

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Messages
2,774
Reaction score
270
Location
Back to East York... Alas!
I see you're still struggling with this. For starters, outside of nuclear, you can reduce and increase output from all sources of electricity. For hydro, you just divert water from the turbines, same goes for natural gas and diverting steam from turbines, and for windpower you alter the pitch to make the blades slip the wind. Solar is trickier to manage unless you have directional panels but it's a tiny part of the grid regardless.

We could likely shut down or significantly reduce these sources and focus on the 57% of the power below from nuclear.



Thus, if we're making surplus power we should be reducing production at the non-nuclear generators. However, the private energy producers, especially the wind turbine operators in Ontario, including the Federal Liberal party leader per the article I posted earlier, have zero incentive to reduce supply since they receive a guaranteed price from Ontario tax payers regardless of the market price or demand.
OK. So, today we generate x MW. We only use 0.8MW. We sell 0.2 MW out of Ontario. Presumably, we sell it for a positive price, right? So what costs are put against that sale to make a negative revenue (i.e. a loss) on that sale? The transmission cost only? The transmission and generation? Or do they add overhead as well?
 
Top