Solar Production, real numbers

Someone posted a link to a solar company that has real time and historic solar power output from their customers.  http://portal.powerhousesolar.ca/publicpage.aspx

This is what I've been looking for, and will be databasing all this data.  But I can show you something very interesting. Take for example this location: http://portal.powerhousesolar.ca/publicinfo.aspx?trackerid=57

Notice the power output for each month of the year (selecting year in the drop down).  Winter months are around 800kwH a month, while the summer is 2500.  An average home uses some 3500 for the month in winter, and about 3000 for the summer, depending on how hot the summer is. 

This chart shows the consumption of an average home for the year, and the solar output for the same months:

Month	Home Consumption	Solar Production	% of consumption
Jan	3739	856.2	23%
Feb	3209	1113.2	35%
Mar	4466	1754.8	39%
Apr	2126	1330.1	63%
May	2193	2021	92%
Jun	3110	2545	82%
Jul	3000	2915.6	97%
Aug	3340	1449.9	43%
Sep	3030
Oct	1873
Nov	2102
Dec	3008
	35,196.0	13,985.8
		27,971.6	Projected

So you can see that a double pillar of 235 panels will not produce as much power as an average home consumes.  This means the home owner of the panels would use more power than his panels provide.  Thus these panel owners do not have a net contribution to the grid since they use more power for their homes than the panels provide.

The best part of this is how much they are making compared to how much they are paying for their own consumption.

Month	Home Consumption	Consumption c/kWh	Solar revenue	Revenue c/kwh
Jan	$204.82	$     0.05	$    686.67	$    0.80
Feb	$166.29	$     0.05	$    892.79	$    0.80
Mar	$224.87	$     0.05	$ 1,407.35	$    0.80
Apr	$68.45	$     0.03	$ 1,066.74	$    0.80
May	$97.92	$     0.04	$ 1,620.84	$    0.80
Jun	$168.93	$     0.05	$ 2,041.09	$    0.80
Jul	$151.42	$     0.05	$ 2,338.31	$    0.80
Aug	$168.03	$     0.05	$ 1,162.82	$    0.80
Sep	$174.54	$     0.06
Oct	$85.26	$     0.05
Nov	$92.94	$     0.04
Dec	$146.24	$     0.05
	$1,749.71		$11,216.61
			$22,433.22	Projected
			$20,683.51	Profit

So these people are paying about $1750 a year for their grid power, and getting some $22,000 for their solar power.  But since their net contribution is zero, it means you, the rate payers, are paying these people $20,000 per year for NOTHING!  You are paying these solar contracts to essentially be off the grid.

Can someone please find an argument that would show me how this can possibly be a net benefit to our grid.

Ontario Liberals entrench 1,800 renewable power projects

http://www.thestar.com/business/article/1033581--ontario-liberals-entrench-1-800-renewable-power-projects?bn=1

Ontario’s Liberal government has entrenched the legal rights of 1,800 proposed renewable energy contracts – making it impossible for a new government to cancel them.

The Liberals have changed the terms for approving contracts under its feed-in tariff program or FIT.

Under the old system, the Ontario Power Authority, which signs the contracts with power developers, could unilaterally terminate proposed agreements at a relatively late stage of the approval process.

But a new directive from energy minister Brad Duguid will entrench the contracts at a much earlier stage in the process.

That will protect 1,800 contracts now in the pipeline from cancellation.

Collectively, the projects represent 3,500 megawatts of generating capacity, the equivalent of close to 10 per cent of the province’s current total capacity.

The issue is politically significant one, since Conservative leader Tim Hudak has vowed to cancel the FIT program if the Conservatives win the provincial election on Oct. 6.

Hudak has said the high prices paid under the FIT program are “unsustainable.”

While the Conservatives would not tear up existing contracts, projects that were only part way through the approval process would have been at risk of cancellation under a new government.

The new rules will reduce the scope for the power authority to cancel agreements for FIT projects.

Duguid said the changes will provide “stability and certainty” for renewable power developers and for their suppliers.

That will make it easier to finance renewable projects, and for power developers to place firm orders with equipment manufacturers, he said.

Duguid said the government has been discussing the issue with the industry for the past year.

But he used the occasion to take a swipe at the Conservatives.

“There’s no question Tim Hudak’s irresponsible plan to dismantle our programs and destroy our clean energy economy is something that’s creating a great deal of instability in our economy right now,” Duguid said.

No Conservative official was available to respond.

Proposed projects will still have to get environmental approval, show that they have a purchase agreement with an Ontario manufacturer and submit a financing plan before they can proceed.

Creating a clean energy sector and adding 50,000 jobs to the economy by the end of 2012 is a key plank in the Liberals’ election platform. The Liberals say they’ve created 20,000 jobs to date.

Peter Tabuns of the New Democratic Party shrugged off the significance of the announcement.

He said many renewable energy developers can’t connect their projects to the grid. Without connections, the projects can’t deliver power or get revenue.

“I think that’s the largest ongoing issue,” he said.

Robert Hornung of the Canadian Wind Energy Association offered cautious endorsement of the changes.

“It reduces project development risk,” said Hornung. “It clarifies in essence what’s required to firm up FIT contracts. That greater certainty makes it easier for them to go and secure financing.”
The association was polling its members yesterday to see how they reacted to the changes.

NDP: More wind and more solar, no nukes

The Ontario NDP has caved into the greens.

“In fact, the NDP’s plan creates a more certain future for renewable energy in Ontario then the Liberal plan, which places a moratorium on all renewable power projects starting in 2018 when expensive new nuclear plants are projected to come on line.”

Result for you? Ever higher power bills.

Read more on this here.

Now, I did an interesting comparision. I posted my May-June power bill to an energy news group to see if others in other countries would respond and compare.

Here is my breakdown.

Total kwh 1,007.92, adjusted for line loss, 1,094.

Peak time: 200.26 @ 10.7 = $21.43
Mid-Peak 199.66 @ 8.9 = $17.77
Off-Peak 693.67 @ 5.9 = $40.93

Total power cost = $80.18
Delivery $68.40
Regulatory $7.36
Deb Retirement $7.06
Tax $21.18
Total billing $184.13

10% Government bribe (enticing people to re-elect the Liberals) $18.41 credit.

This is a couple of the replies, be seated as you read them.

"Wow those delivery charges are outrageous! We have a generation and transmission charge of about $12 and $5 respectively, our electric usage was 568 Kwh (down from 631 last year same time period) for a total of $23.87 for electric ($47.98 after all BS charges) with a total bill of $73.84 including gas. I sympathize, but can't help but think there are ways to cut usage more."
Jerry, NCal

"From May 19th to June 17th I used 208 kwh, for my 1400 sq. ft. home. I didn't skimp and do without to reach that number; I could have worked a lot harder to minimize electricity use. My charge for the power, which includes many small components, delivery charge, taxes, dam removal charges (very small), Columbia River benefits (a rebate), etc. is $29.13."
Susan, Oregon

Upcoming Election

Who you vote for is up to you, of course. I noted a while back I was using a back door to get some changes to the power system. Now we are close to the election I will tell you what that was. I have been on the Energy Policy Advisory Committee for the Ontario Progressive Conservatives. This group developed the current policy that Tim Hudak is presenting to the public. I cannot take credit for this policy, as those in the group shared my views, so it was a collective effort. The group was well represented, and had great research and reporting done for the Party to consider.

As for my plan for a new power conglomeration, it was submitted to the group and it was considered. How much of it will survive to become policy is now in the hands of the Party and the electorate. I will not stop my advocacy for this new system. Though some on the committee did not agree with my proposal, some did. Alternatives proposed are not that far off from what I have proposed. The big one being less government interference in the system. More autonomy in the organizations, and a restructuring of the organizations. I will continue to push for my proposal, even after the election.

Now that I have exposed my political bent, I do have a comment about the NDP's position to unite the "alphabet soup" of power organizations into HydroOne, essentially recreating Ontario Hydro.

Big mistake. Why on earth would you want to reward H1? If anything, H1 needs to be punished for its predatory behavior towards customers, and have its billing transferred to the IESO. H1 should look after the transmission system and that's it.

According to the polls, and the last Federal Election, looks like the Liberals are in serious trouble. Bye Bye Dalton!

Clarification of Ontario PC Party’s Plans for Feed-In Tariff Program

http://windconcernsontario.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/132164_energy-law-update.pdf


The document states the following with respect to energy policy:

We will stop the expensive energy experiments that are driving up hydro bills.
A Tim Hudak government will end the Liberal government’s schemes that have families subsidize hydro prices. We will end the feed-in tariff program that, in some cases, pays up to 15 times the usual cost of the hydro. Hardworking farmers and other Ontarians who signed contracts to host energy production on their property will have their contracts honoured. But there will be no more of these deals.
We will end the king of all secret, sweetheart deals – the $7 billion Samsung deal – that happened without a competitive process or a guarantee of job creation targets. Building our green energy sector cannot be achieved by writing a cheque to one single foreign-owned multinational corporation that was handed every advantage.

We will give families a voice in how hydro rates are set.
Families understand that their hydro bill goes up if they leave the lights on. But why does it skyrocket for no apparent reason? The Ontario Energy Board sets rates, but this body has lost its independence. We will restore that independence by ending the day-to-day political interference of the last eight years. And we will establish a powerful Consumer Advocate at the OEB. The Consumer Advocate will represent only consumers. Not the bureaucrats. Not the energy sector. Not the special interests.


For any FIT Contract holders who do not yet have NTP at the time of a change in government, a PC Government would exercise its rights under Sections 2.4(a), (e) and (f) of the FIT Contract to terminate the FIT Contract, return the Completion and Performance Security, and pay the Supplier its reasonable Pre-Construction Development Costs (upon delivery of written documentation thereof).

As many as 6 million Brits could be forced to choose between a hot meal or heating their homes this winter

A quarter of Brits are living in fuel poverty as energy bills rocket
by Ruki Sayid, Daily Mirror 6/07/2011

As energy prices go through the roof, shocking figures reveal one in four families has been plunged into fuel poverty.

Single parents are the hardest hit with 39% of mother or father and child households struggling to pay bills.

The figures are higher than the one in five first estimated and show for the first time wealthier families have also been hammered by spiralling fuel costs with 15% of middle classes now fuel poor.

Research from price comparison website uSwitch found the number would leap to one in three if housing costs were added in.

It means at least 18 million people are spending 10% or more of their take home pay on energy bills. Based on the new way of calculating fuel poverty, 47% of working class families and 22% of the middle classes fall into this bracket.

A quarter of families with a stay-at-home parent are fuel poor but uSwitch argues this figure would soar to 44% if mortgages or rents were included. The number of fuel poor single parent families would jump from 39% to 52% while pensioner numbers would rise from 33% to 36%.

According to the website, fuel bills have rocketed by 71% in the past five years rising from £660 a year in 2006 to £1,131 today.

And there’s worse to come as from next month, 2.4 million Scottish Power customers will be paying 10% more for electricity and 19% more for gas.

British Gas is expected to announce similar hikes ahead of parent company Centrica unveiling its results on July 28 with rivals following suit.

Consumer Focus warned as many as 6 million could be forced to choose between a hot meal or heating their homes this winter.

William Baker, Head of Fuel Poverty Policy added: “Rising energy prices will lead to a bigger bills and a huge upswing in fuel poverty. This will mean an increasing percentage of our population, especially those on low incomes, are more likely to live in colder or damp houses or face higher debt.”



Read more: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/city-news/2011/07/06/a-quarter-of-brits-are-living-in-fuel-poverty-as-energy-bills-rocket-115875-23250279/#ixzz1RQZKWSVQ

‘Green' jobs: Shrewd PR, bad economics

STEPHEN GORDON
Globe and Mail Blog
Posted on Monday, June 27, 2011 6:27AM EDT

"Job creation should not be a goal of environmental policy, no more than it should be a policy goal in the fields of health or national security. If, instead of hiring people, we could use magic to stop disease, crime and environmental degradation, we would. Pointing to jobs ‘created’ to fix these problems is an error that Frédéric Bastiat identified in his ‘parable of the broken window’. Broken windows generate work for glaziers, but that doesn’t mean that breaking windows will increase national income. "

Read it all here: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/stephen-gordon/green-jobs-shrewd-pr-bad-economics/article2076663/