Niagara Falls Review
“We must deliver power to such an extent that the poorest working man will have light in his home,” “Power at cost” and “Public power ownership.”
These are three quotes from Sir Adam Beck in his initial years as chairman of the original Ontario Hydro. At this time, private companies are approaching agricultural-designated land owners in the Niagara Peninsula and offering them $500 per acre per year for 20 years to install hundreds of tons of concrete and solar panels. Once installed, they will sell the power back to the people of Ontario for 80 cents a kilowatt.
I calculated my bill this morning and my usage cost me 13 cents a kilowatt. If this is such a great idea, why not install all this concrete on the publicly owned land. For example, the hundreds of miles of transmission corridors, the hundreds of acres of industrial land surrounding the generating stations, in particular the Nanticoke site and Lambton site (assuming this government isn’t smart enough to install nuclear power on these sites) where the electrical infrastructure is right there.
The expense of upgrading the electrical infrastructure, installing fences and securing proper drainage on these farm lands are all expenses that the people of Ontario will bear the burden of through grants and then “blend” the 80 cents into their monthly bill. Once the land lease is over, I don’t think you can grow carrots in concrete.
In case no one has noticed lately, there is no industry here and with these proposed rates, it’s obvious we will not be appealing to any sort of business.
The U.S. and China are ramping up right now installing an unbelievable number of thermal plants. It’s obvious they want industry and jobs. In recent months, OPG has paid other utilities to take excess power and is regularly spilling water at four cents a kilowatt to allow solar and wind generation to stay on the grid. Hydro One and Ontario Power Generation have gifted individuals who are paid by the taxpayers who should be given the opportunity and ability to give us taxpayers some proper direction now and into the future. Politicians should only set the guidelines.
One last thought, our failing health system, our electrical power rates and this great HST — it shouldn’t take a brain surgeon come election time.
Darryl McGowan
Retired Ontario Power Generation supervisor, Niagara Falls
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
The evisceration of the Independent Electricity System Operator
Energy Probe, February 8, 2011 –
Parker Gallant writes that the Independent Electricity System Operator has lost its independence from political influence.
The President and CEO of the IESO, Paul Murphy, delivered a speech to the Ontario Energy Network January 11, 2010 in which it is obvious that the “independence” of IESO has been taken away. IESO, based on this speech, seems onside with the Minister of Energy’s Long Term Energy Plan (LTEP), adding renewable energy to the grid, and installing smart meters.
This speech was the kick-off to what is likely to be a tumultuous year in Ontario’s energy sector and one of the major issues in the fall election. As an outsider it would appear that Mr. Murphy was given marching orders by the Minister to bow to their agenda and endorse the Green Energy Act and the LTEP.
In the speech he tells the audience that there is 37,000 MW of wind and solar already installed in North America but omits reference to its intermittent delivery of power to the grid, or that installed capacity has nothing to do with what it actually produces. The speech states that “wind and solar doesn’t generally displace other non-carbon sources like nuclear or hydro” yet it was IESO’s report that recently disclosed we had exported surplus generation to the US and Quebec in December at a loss. It was reported by several parties associated with the energy sector that the cost to Ontario ratepayers was over $50 Million during that month. In the process it was self-evident the exports displaced OPG’s hydro generation, reducing their revenues and producing a lengthening repayment period of the old stranded debt.
The speech focused on the McGuinty/Duguid messages — how revewables are not driving up costs and how paying 80 cents/kwh for rooftop solar is appropriate because it is such a small amount. The speech was silent on the fact that the LTEP will bring the baseload of our electricity system to 83%, and does not address the past concerns that IESO has expressed about how intermittent electricity sources such as wind and hydro affect their ability to manage the grid. One need only look to the recent problems that Texas (with 10,000 MW of wind capacity) had with their grid forcing rolling blackouts partially induced by intermittent wind production. In the future IESO will be forced to sell more of our power at a loss to the US and Quebec as we did in December. The speech references forecasting weather and how IESO are in the process of setting up a wind forecasting unit. On this latter issue it would be interesting to learn if IESO plans peer comparison with other markets or are simply acting on directions from above.
The speech tells the reader Ontario is a leader in introducing “smart meters” along with time-of-use (TOU) pricing. Smart meters are seen as an enabler for the smart grid of tomorrow. Perhaps they are but this writer isn’t sold. Based on personal experience with Toronto Hydro and seven surges or outages from January 1st to January 20th of this year, smart meters are not saving Toronto Hydro customers from blackouts. When the problems in our neighbourhood were reported to TH, they were completely unaware our neighbourhood had any outages despite the fact that smart meters have been installed. Smart meters reputedly allow electricity distributors to spot problems rather than wait for a phone call to report an outage but it would appear this benefit eludes TH at the present time.
The speech reports how “many” people are benefiting from TOU pricing, yet actual results emanating from pilot projects run throughout the province actually point in a different direction. In Toronto over 80 % in the pilot program reported an increase in electricity costs.
Included in the speech is the observation that Ontario doesn’t have the highest prices in North America and references a study by Hydro Quebec that places “Ontario residential rates in the middle of the pack.” The increases announced by the Minister of 46% over the next four years in the LTEP will allow us to take that leap to price leadership! The speech goes on to state that electricity costs will rise not only in Ontario but across North America. The latter statement is in contrast with the US government’s Energy Information Administration that is forecasting a decline in electricity prices over the next 25 years after adjustment for inflation.
In the latter part of the speech we read about Ontario’s “hybrid market structure, combining a competitive wholesale energy market with significant amounts of contracted or regulated supply.” The speech lauds the Ontario Power Authority and how they have “done a good job with many of their contracts to make sure these facilities choose to run when it’s most cost effective.”
On the first point above the choice of the noun “hybrid” was perhaps meant to conjure up green images and is a bitter truth for ratepayers and why Ontario’s rates are heading up. Knowing that the OPA sets renewable energy prices well above market value compared with any other jurisdiction, it would not be factual to claim that Ontario’s market is “competitive.” When referring to how the OPA’s contracts will “make sure these facilities choose to run when it’s most cost effective” one can only presume Mr. Murphy wasn’t referencing wind and solar, which don’t choose to produce power when we actually need it.
It almost sounds as though Mr. Murphy had this speech handed to him by the Ministry’s office and was told to deliver it. It is unfortunate that the Minister of Energy has taken the “Independent” out of IESO’s mandate just as they took the word “balances” out of the OEB’s first objective; “To provide sound economic regulation that balances the interests of consumers with the need for a financially viable energy sector” and replaced it with the word “consider”.
Over the past few years we have witnessed the evisceration of the public energy sector by the current government to the point where they put words in the mouths of those charged with the unenviable task of executing their misguided policies.
The time has come to depoliticize the energy sector in Ontario and ask the bureaucrats to do their job!
Parker Gallant writes that the Independent Electricity System Operator has lost its independence from political influence.
The President and CEO of the IESO, Paul Murphy, delivered a speech to the Ontario Energy Network January 11, 2010 in which it is obvious that the “independence” of IESO has been taken away. IESO, based on this speech, seems onside with the Minister of Energy’s Long Term Energy Plan (LTEP), adding renewable energy to the grid, and installing smart meters.
This speech was the kick-off to what is likely to be a tumultuous year in Ontario’s energy sector and one of the major issues in the fall election. As an outsider it would appear that Mr. Murphy was given marching orders by the Minister to bow to their agenda and endorse the Green Energy Act and the LTEP.
In the speech he tells the audience that there is 37,000 MW of wind and solar already installed in North America but omits reference to its intermittent delivery of power to the grid, or that installed capacity has nothing to do with what it actually produces. The speech states that “wind and solar doesn’t generally displace other non-carbon sources like nuclear or hydro” yet it was IESO’s report that recently disclosed we had exported surplus generation to the US and Quebec in December at a loss. It was reported by several parties associated with the energy sector that the cost to Ontario ratepayers was over $50 Million during that month. In the process it was self-evident the exports displaced OPG’s hydro generation, reducing their revenues and producing a lengthening repayment period of the old stranded debt.
The speech focused on the McGuinty/Duguid messages — how revewables are not driving up costs and how paying 80 cents/kwh for rooftop solar is appropriate because it is such a small amount. The speech was silent on the fact that the LTEP will bring the baseload of our electricity system to 83%, and does not address the past concerns that IESO has expressed about how intermittent electricity sources such as wind and hydro affect their ability to manage the grid. One need only look to the recent problems that Texas (with 10,000 MW of wind capacity) had with their grid forcing rolling blackouts partially induced by intermittent wind production. In the future IESO will be forced to sell more of our power at a loss to the US and Quebec as we did in December. The speech references forecasting weather and how IESO are in the process of setting up a wind forecasting unit. On this latter issue it would be interesting to learn if IESO plans peer comparison with other markets or are simply acting on directions from above.
The speech tells the reader Ontario is a leader in introducing “smart meters” along with time-of-use (TOU) pricing. Smart meters are seen as an enabler for the smart grid of tomorrow. Perhaps they are but this writer isn’t sold. Based on personal experience with Toronto Hydro and seven surges or outages from January 1st to January 20th of this year, smart meters are not saving Toronto Hydro customers from blackouts. When the problems in our neighbourhood were reported to TH, they were completely unaware our neighbourhood had any outages despite the fact that smart meters have been installed. Smart meters reputedly allow electricity distributors to spot problems rather than wait for a phone call to report an outage but it would appear this benefit eludes TH at the present time.
The speech reports how “many” people are benefiting from TOU pricing, yet actual results emanating from pilot projects run throughout the province actually point in a different direction. In Toronto over 80 % in the pilot program reported an increase in electricity costs.
Included in the speech is the observation that Ontario doesn’t have the highest prices in North America and references a study by Hydro Quebec that places “Ontario residential rates in the middle of the pack.” The increases announced by the Minister of 46% over the next four years in the LTEP will allow us to take that leap to price leadership! The speech goes on to state that electricity costs will rise not only in Ontario but across North America. The latter statement is in contrast with the US government’s Energy Information Administration that is forecasting a decline in electricity prices over the next 25 years after adjustment for inflation.
In the latter part of the speech we read about Ontario’s “hybrid market structure, combining a competitive wholesale energy market with significant amounts of contracted or regulated supply.” The speech lauds the Ontario Power Authority and how they have “done a good job with many of their contracts to make sure these facilities choose to run when it’s most cost effective.”
On the first point above the choice of the noun “hybrid” was perhaps meant to conjure up green images and is a bitter truth for ratepayers and why Ontario’s rates are heading up. Knowing that the OPA sets renewable energy prices well above market value compared with any other jurisdiction, it would not be factual to claim that Ontario’s market is “competitive.” When referring to how the OPA’s contracts will “make sure these facilities choose to run when it’s most cost effective” one can only presume Mr. Murphy wasn’t referencing wind and solar, which don’t choose to produce power when we actually need it.
It almost sounds as though Mr. Murphy had this speech handed to him by the Ministry’s office and was told to deliver it. It is unfortunate that the Minister of Energy has taken the “Independent” out of IESO’s mandate just as they took the word “balances” out of the OEB’s first objective; “To provide sound economic regulation that balances the interests of consumers with the need for a financially viable energy sector” and replaced it with the word “consider”.
Over the past few years we have witnessed the evisceration of the public energy sector by the current government to the point where they put words in the mouths of those charged with the unenviable task of executing their misguided policies.
The time has come to depoliticize the energy sector in Ontario and ask the bureaucrats to do their job!
Monday, February 7, 2011
Ontario to launch $1 million blitz to explain soaring energy costs
Robert Benzie
Queen’s Park Bureau Chief
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/934239--ontario-to-launch-1-million-blitz-to-explain-soaring-energy-costs?bn=1
OTTAWA—Premier Dalton McGuinty is hitting Ontarians where they live to explain rising energy prices and what’s being done to help.
Queen’s Park is distributing a six-page pamphlet this week to every household in Ontario as part of a public-relations blitz to tout the new 10 per cent discount on electricity.
The Star obtained an advance copy of the leaflet, which is costing about $1 million to mail out.
“What we’re trying to convey is why we’re doing this,” McGuinty said late Saturday after a 40-minute speech to 300 Liberals at the party’s pre-election policy conference here.
“It is a major undertaking, but we’ve come a long way since the days of 2003 and 2004 when it was touch and go with respect to our capacity to meet electricity demand in Ontario,” the premier said.
While generation is more plentiful and less polluting, electricity bills have skyrocketed and are expected to increase an additional 46 per cent over the next five years.
“We’re now in a position where we’ve got a reliable supply and we’re doing it in a really smart way. We’re doing it in a way that creates thousands of new jobs,” said McGuinty, referring to the Green Energy Act that subsidizes clean wind and solar generators with hopes of creating 50,000 new jobs over three years.
“It’s cleaning up our air so I just want to give Ontarians a sense of why we’re doing this and what we’ve been able to achieve together,” he said.
But with an election looming Oct. 6 and Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak and NDP Leader Andrea Horwath appealing to voter concerns on pocketbook issues, McGuinty launched a 10 per cent hydro rate discount as of Jan. 1.
Known as the Clean Energy Benefit, the measure will cost the treasury, already struggling with an $18.7 billion budget deficit, more than $1 billion a year.
“It’s going to convey to Ontarians that we’re sensitive to their household finances and that we’re trying to help,” insisted the premier.
The six-page brochure, entitled “Electricity prices are changing. Find out why,” is ostensibly a non-partisan document that was approved for release by Auditor General Jim McCarter.
Still, it echoes the themes in the PowerPoint presentation McGuinty has been making across the province in recent weeks.
“Like in a lot of places around the world, electricity prices in Ontario are going up. Why? Ontario is building the infrastructure we need to make sure the lights stay on, now and in the future,” the document states.
It goes on to boast how eight coal-fired generation plants have been closed and the last will be mothballed in 2014.
As well, the leaflet heralds how $9 billion in private-sector investment has been committed in the past year for renewable energy projects and that Ontario has more than 700 wind turbines — up from 10 when the Liberals were elected in 2003.
(The controversial $7 billion deal with Samsung accounts for the lion’s share of that, although the South Korean company is not mentioned by name.)
But this shift has come at a price because green energy is heavily subsidized with generators being paid up to 80 cents a kilowatt hour for electricity that costs about 4 cents from nuclear plants.
Hence the 10 per cent discount.
“The average household will see savings of about $150 this year. The credit will be applied directly to your electricity bill for the next five years,” the pamphlet states.
Horwath, for her part, said Sunday that the Liberals’ moves are cold comfort for worried Ontario families.
“I don’t know how they neutralize this (as an election issue),” said the NDP leader, pointing out that the 13 per cent harmonized sales tax on energy bills is walloping consumers.
“Everywhere I go, I am hearing from families about the cost of household bills,” said Horwath, whose party is promising to scrap the 8 per cent provincial portion of the HST from energy costs and raise corporate taxes to foot the tab.
Tory MPP Lisa MacLeod (Nepean-Carleton), whose party has yet to disclose its plans for tax relief, said McGuinty is out of touch with families.
“The reality is that hydro bills and the HST have become a really big burden on the family budget. We’re hearing it every day,” said MacLeod.
“It’s a little too late for them to be giving credits or the like. Right now, families realize they’re in a very dire strait in paying many of their bills and I don’t think the hydro scheme they’ve put in place is at all helping Ontario families.”
Queen’s Park Bureau Chief
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/934239--ontario-to-launch-1-million-blitz-to-explain-soaring-energy-costs?bn=1
OTTAWA—Premier Dalton McGuinty is hitting Ontarians where they live to explain rising energy prices and what’s being done to help.
Queen’s Park is distributing a six-page pamphlet this week to every household in Ontario as part of a public-relations blitz to tout the new 10 per cent discount on electricity.
The Star obtained an advance copy of the leaflet, which is costing about $1 million to mail out.
“What we’re trying to convey is why we’re doing this,” McGuinty said late Saturday after a 40-minute speech to 300 Liberals at the party’s pre-election policy conference here.
“It is a major undertaking, but we’ve come a long way since the days of 2003 and 2004 when it was touch and go with respect to our capacity to meet electricity demand in Ontario,” the premier said.
While generation is more plentiful and less polluting, electricity bills have skyrocketed and are expected to increase an additional 46 per cent over the next five years.
“We’re now in a position where we’ve got a reliable supply and we’re doing it in a really smart way. We’re doing it in a way that creates thousands of new jobs,” said McGuinty, referring to the Green Energy Act that subsidizes clean wind and solar generators with hopes of creating 50,000 new jobs over three years.
“It’s cleaning up our air so I just want to give Ontarians a sense of why we’re doing this and what we’ve been able to achieve together,” he said.
But with an election looming Oct. 6 and Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak and NDP Leader Andrea Horwath appealing to voter concerns on pocketbook issues, McGuinty launched a 10 per cent hydro rate discount as of Jan. 1.
Known as the Clean Energy Benefit, the measure will cost the treasury, already struggling with an $18.7 billion budget deficit, more than $1 billion a year.
“It’s going to convey to Ontarians that we’re sensitive to their household finances and that we’re trying to help,” insisted the premier.
The six-page brochure, entitled “Electricity prices are changing. Find out why,” is ostensibly a non-partisan document that was approved for release by Auditor General Jim McCarter.
Still, it echoes the themes in the PowerPoint presentation McGuinty has been making across the province in recent weeks.
“Like in a lot of places around the world, electricity prices in Ontario are going up. Why? Ontario is building the infrastructure we need to make sure the lights stay on, now and in the future,” the document states.
It goes on to boast how eight coal-fired generation plants have been closed and the last will be mothballed in 2014.
As well, the leaflet heralds how $9 billion in private-sector investment has been committed in the past year for renewable energy projects and that Ontario has more than 700 wind turbines — up from 10 when the Liberals were elected in 2003.
(The controversial $7 billion deal with Samsung accounts for the lion’s share of that, although the South Korean company is not mentioned by name.)
But this shift has come at a price because green energy is heavily subsidized with generators being paid up to 80 cents a kilowatt hour for electricity that costs about 4 cents from nuclear plants.
Hence the 10 per cent discount.
“The average household will see savings of about $150 this year. The credit will be applied directly to your electricity bill for the next five years,” the pamphlet states.
Horwath, for her part, said Sunday that the Liberals’ moves are cold comfort for worried Ontario families.
“I don’t know how they neutralize this (as an election issue),” said the NDP leader, pointing out that the 13 per cent harmonized sales tax on energy bills is walloping consumers.
“Everywhere I go, I am hearing from families about the cost of household bills,” said Horwath, whose party is promising to scrap the 8 per cent provincial portion of the HST from energy costs and raise corporate taxes to foot the tab.
Tory MPP Lisa MacLeod (Nepean-Carleton), whose party has yet to disclose its plans for tax relief, said McGuinty is out of touch with families.
“The reality is that hydro bills and the HST have become a really big burden on the family budget. We’re hearing it every day,” said MacLeod.
“It’s a little too late for them to be giving credits or the like. Right now, families realize they’re in a very dire strait in paying many of their bills and I don’t think the hydro scheme they’ve put in place is at all helping Ontario families.”
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Queen’s Park’s energy greenwashing: Woodcock
By CONNIE WOODCOCK, Toronto Sun
Last Updated: February 5, 2011 7:53pm
There was a pale green and grey brochure from the Ontario government in my mail last week.
Its low key message: “Electricity prices are changing. Find out why.”
Wow, there’s a surprise. Who knew? I guess they think I might not have noticed yet that my bill is nearly double what it was three years ago.
Inside, it burbles on ungrammatically about Ontario electricity prices going up “like in a lot of places around the world,” the need to build new infrastructure, shut down coal generating plants and find cleaner sources of electricity.
Then it tells us that although prices will be going up more than 7% a year for the next few years, the government wants to “help manage costs.” Right, that’s the 10% they’re knocking off bills, the tax credit some seniors may receive and an energy credit available only to Northern Ontario residents.
I wonder how much this self-congratulatory little publication cost to tell us what we already know: That we’re choking on our energy bills and it will only get worse.
Such hypocrisy. Yes, electricity rates are going up in many places — but nowhere higher than in Ontario, studies have shown.
There’s another example of the province’s hypocrisy surrounding electricity that’s been bothering me for weeks.
It started with the mid-January release of Ontario’s air quality report for 2009 which showed our air is getting cleaner. In fact, three major pollutants — nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide and sulphur dioxide — were down between 40 and 64% since the turn of the century. There were only three smog advisories in 2009. Last year’s stats aren’t out yet but 2010 didn’t have many smog days either.
Wouldn’t you know it, the government quickly patted itself on the back for the good numbers. It’s all because of the province’s clean air efforts, including shutting down those evil coal-fired generating plants, according to Ontario Environment Minister John Wilkinson.
“We made that important decision that it was more important to have cleaner air even if clean air costs a bit more because it’s better for all of us and better for our children.”
La la la. Yet another tune from the green energy hymn book.
And everyone from the media to the Ontario Clean Air Alliance, an anti-coal lobby group, let him get away with that — not once but over and over as the report was publicized.
Kudos go out to the NDP’s Peter Kormos for at least pointing out it’s more likely the recession, which shut down factories all over Southern Ontario, that really cut the pollutants. But even he was ignoring the obvious, as we’ll see.
The province’s claim was repeated last week when the Living City Report Card, prepared by the Greater Toronto CivicAction Alliance and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, was released. The report credited the coal plants’ closures with the huge reductions in carbon emissions and sulphur in the city since 2005.
Still, the obvious answer was ignored even though it was splashed all over the biggest U.S. newspapers at roughly the same time as the environment minister was claiming bragging rights.
The U.S. energy department reported on Jan. 14 that the recession has led to massive drops in American greenhouse gases since 2005. And at the same time a utilities consortium said when demand dropped, the utilities cut back production from their most inefficient plants — the old, heavily polluting coal fired stations — and produced more energy from cleaner gas-fired plants.
Since Ontario gets at least 50% of its pollution from the U.S., it seems likely that high American unemployment — not Ontario’s clean energy policies — is the biggest reason our pollution is dropping.
But of course, you’ll never hear that from Queen’s Park.
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/connie_woodcock/2011/02/04/17160911.html
Last Updated: February 5, 2011 7:53pm
There was a pale green and grey brochure from the Ontario government in my mail last week.
Its low key message: “Electricity prices are changing. Find out why.”
Wow, there’s a surprise. Who knew? I guess they think I might not have noticed yet that my bill is nearly double what it was three years ago.
Inside, it burbles on ungrammatically about Ontario electricity prices going up “like in a lot of places around the world,” the need to build new infrastructure, shut down coal generating plants and find cleaner sources of electricity.
Then it tells us that although prices will be going up more than 7% a year for the next few years, the government wants to “help manage costs.” Right, that’s the 10% they’re knocking off bills, the tax credit some seniors may receive and an energy credit available only to Northern Ontario residents.
I wonder how much this self-congratulatory little publication cost to tell us what we already know: That we’re choking on our energy bills and it will only get worse.
Such hypocrisy. Yes, electricity rates are going up in many places — but nowhere higher than in Ontario, studies have shown.
There’s another example of the province’s hypocrisy surrounding electricity that’s been bothering me for weeks.
It started with the mid-January release of Ontario’s air quality report for 2009 which showed our air is getting cleaner. In fact, three major pollutants — nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide and sulphur dioxide — were down between 40 and 64% since the turn of the century. There were only three smog advisories in 2009. Last year’s stats aren’t out yet but 2010 didn’t have many smog days either.
Wouldn’t you know it, the government quickly patted itself on the back for the good numbers. It’s all because of the province’s clean air efforts, including shutting down those evil coal-fired generating plants, according to Ontario Environment Minister John Wilkinson.
“We made that important decision that it was more important to have cleaner air even if clean air costs a bit more because it’s better for all of us and better for our children.”
La la la. Yet another tune from the green energy hymn book.
And everyone from the media to the Ontario Clean Air Alliance, an anti-coal lobby group, let him get away with that — not once but over and over as the report was publicized.
Kudos go out to the NDP’s Peter Kormos for at least pointing out it’s more likely the recession, which shut down factories all over Southern Ontario, that really cut the pollutants. But even he was ignoring the obvious, as we’ll see.
The province’s claim was repeated last week when the Living City Report Card, prepared by the Greater Toronto CivicAction Alliance and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, was released. The report credited the coal plants’ closures with the huge reductions in carbon emissions and sulphur in the city since 2005.
Still, the obvious answer was ignored even though it was splashed all over the biggest U.S. newspapers at roughly the same time as the environment minister was claiming bragging rights.
The U.S. energy department reported on Jan. 14 that the recession has led to massive drops in American greenhouse gases since 2005. And at the same time a utilities consortium said when demand dropped, the utilities cut back production from their most inefficient plants — the old, heavily polluting coal fired stations — and produced more energy from cleaner gas-fired plants.
Since Ontario gets at least 50% of its pollution from the U.S., it seems likely that high American unemployment — not Ontario’s clean energy policies — is the biggest reason our pollution is dropping.
But of course, you’ll never hear that from Queen’s Park.
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/connie_woodcock/2011/02/04/17160911.html
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Why the need to export electricity subsidized by the Ontario consumer?
By: Donald Jones, P.Eng.
http://windconcernsontario.wordpress.com/2011/02/02/why-the-need-to-export-electricity-subsidized-by-the-ontario-consumer/
Ontario exports large amounts of electricity to neighbouring jurisdictions day and night. Exports occur for technical and financial reasons. Ontario presently has an excess of baseload generation so it makes sense to export the surplus. In the immediate future there will be many thousands of megawatts of installed wind power on the grid and exporting will be the only way to maximize its accommodation on the grid while maintaining grid reliability. Since supply contracts with the non-utility gas generators apparently mean that consumers pay whether the generation is needed by Ontarians or not, it makes some sort of misguided sense to export at a subsidized price and get at least something for it.
At times of the year, usually the shoulder seasons of spring and fall, the province presently has a surplus of baseload generation. This Surplus Baseload Generation (SBG) occurs when baseload generation, from nuclear, must-run hydro, combined-heat-and- power, and wind, that cannot be reduced for technical or contractual reasons, exceeds demand. If an export market is available of sufficient capacity this will prevent powering down or shutting down nuclear units that could be offline for up to three days leaving gas and coal to take up the slack. In this case it makes sense to export even at negative prices if it prevents manoeuvring our present nuclear units.
Wind is a take-when-available energy source and has priority to the grid during SBG periods ahead of nuclear but the latest wind contracts with the Feed-In Tariffs, signed in early 2010, provide financial incentives for future wind generators to curtail production during SBG periods (although such incentives are not provided for the 1,400 or so megawatts that will be on the grid from the earlier Renewable Energy Standard Offer Program-RESOP). For example the feed-in-tariff of 13.5 cents/kWh for on-shore wind is reduced a cent for every cent/kWh the electricity price goes below zero but wind generators will get paid the full cost of forecast production if they voluntarily curtail production when requested to do so by the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO). For wind generators installed under the old pre Feed-In-Tariff (FIT) program, RESOP, the wind has priority to the grid over nuclear unless there are technical or reliability reasons to prevent it. The IESO cannot dispatch wind off for economic reasons under either program, only for technical or reliability reasons, although it is trying to be allowed to do this.
The governments Long-Term Energy Plan calls for 12,000 MW of nuclear capacity to provide just 50 percent of total generation, since anything more than 50 percent causes concerns about nuclear turndown in low demand periods. For details see, “Ontario Needs More Than 2000 MW of New Nuclear” By 2018 there will be 10,700 MW of installed wind, solar and bioenergy – let us assume 8,500 MW of installed wind – and 9,000 MW of hydro, including run-of-the-river and storage. The gas-fired generation will be maintained at its current level of over 9,500 MW – say 10,000 MW – and there will be 1,000 MW of Combined Heat and Power added to the baseload supply.
If we assume the maximum available 10,000 MW of dispatchable gas generation is on line and that it is all combined cycle and that it can get down to, say, 50 percent, then it can integrate 5,000 MW of wind. The 50 percent is an average figure since some plants may be kept at the bottom of their dispatchable range while others may be down at say 20 percent with some turbines in a multi-gas turbine plant shutdown. The other 3,500 MW of wind would have to be integrated by reducing hydro generation by 3,500 MW. If hydro can be dispatched down to the must-run hydro minimum of around say 2,000 MW it means that there must be at least 5,500 MW of hydro on line to accommodate the remaining 3,500 MW of wind.
This shows that there could be potential concerns during a day when gas and hydro are operating at less than their maximum capacity (which is most of the time) and wind kicks in since all the installed wind generation would not be able to be accommodated on the grid. However if there were high levels of export much more of this wind could be accommodated. This also has technical advantages since the combined cycle gas turbine generators on the grid might not have to be powered down below their dispatchable range of around 70 to 100 percent of full power. When in their dispatchable range the units can respond appropriately to dispatches sent every five minutes by the IESO. When operating below their dispatchable range they might not be able to raise power quickly enough if the wind suddenly drops, putting the grid at risk. The safe and reliable operation of Ontario’s nuclear units depends to a certain extent on the reliability of the grid to which they are connected. In the future, without exports, there could be insufficient dispatchable gas and coal-fired generation available on the grid that could be powered back to accommodate the potential wind generation. Exports maximize the amount of wind that can be integrated into the grid and improves the grid reliability. This is explained in detail in, http://coldaircurrents.blogspot.com/2011/01/more-wind-means-more-risk-to-ontario.html
Minister Duguid recently said that ”exporting Ontario power at prices lower than those paid by the province’s consumers makes sense”. Exporting at prices that do not include the Global Adjustment (GA) charge that Ontario consumers pay does not make sense. In a properly run system this would not happen. The only possible rationale for this is that the gas-fired non-utility generators have been contracted by the Ontario Power Authority to supply a certain amount of megawatt hours per year, for many years, and they get paid even if their supply is not needed by Ontarians. Without this type of contract the generators would only produce what was needed and consumers would save on the GA charge and less fuel would be burned with less accompanying pollution. The financial saving is shown in the lowest plot on http://morecoldair.blogspot.com/2011/01/mcguinty-thinks-this-is-fun-it-hasnt.html Something is better than nothing in Minister Duguid’s case only because of the poor management of the electricity system.
This shows that rather than trying to minimize the output of gas and coal-fired generation technical and financial issues will increase the output, burning more gas and producing more Ontario pollution. With controversial unconventional shale gas becoming more of the mix, gas prices are surely to rise. With large amounts of installed wind coming on to the grid and without exports the grid reliability will be reduced.
http://windconcernsontario.wordpress.com/2011/02/02/why-the-need-to-export-electricity-subsidized-by-the-ontario-consumer/
Ontario exports large amounts of electricity to neighbouring jurisdictions day and night. Exports occur for technical and financial reasons. Ontario presently has an excess of baseload generation so it makes sense to export the surplus. In the immediate future there will be many thousands of megawatts of installed wind power on the grid and exporting will be the only way to maximize its accommodation on the grid while maintaining grid reliability. Since supply contracts with the non-utility gas generators apparently mean that consumers pay whether the generation is needed by Ontarians or not, it makes some sort of misguided sense to export at a subsidized price and get at least something for it.
At times of the year, usually the shoulder seasons of spring and fall, the province presently has a surplus of baseload generation. This Surplus Baseload Generation (SBG) occurs when baseload generation, from nuclear, must-run hydro, combined-heat-and- power, and wind, that cannot be reduced for technical or contractual reasons, exceeds demand. If an export market is available of sufficient capacity this will prevent powering down or shutting down nuclear units that could be offline for up to three days leaving gas and coal to take up the slack. In this case it makes sense to export even at negative prices if it prevents manoeuvring our present nuclear units.
Wind is a take-when-available energy source and has priority to the grid during SBG periods ahead of nuclear but the latest wind contracts with the Feed-In Tariffs, signed in early 2010, provide financial incentives for future wind generators to curtail production during SBG periods (although such incentives are not provided for the 1,400 or so megawatts that will be on the grid from the earlier Renewable Energy Standard Offer Program-RESOP). For example the feed-in-tariff of 13.5 cents/kWh for on-shore wind is reduced a cent for every cent/kWh the electricity price goes below zero but wind generators will get paid the full cost of forecast production if they voluntarily curtail production when requested to do so by the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO). For wind generators installed under the old pre Feed-In-Tariff (FIT) program, RESOP, the wind has priority to the grid over nuclear unless there are technical or reliability reasons to prevent it. The IESO cannot dispatch wind off for economic reasons under either program, only for technical or reliability reasons, although it is trying to be allowed to do this.
The governments Long-Term Energy Plan calls for 12,000 MW of nuclear capacity to provide just 50 percent of total generation, since anything more than 50 percent causes concerns about nuclear turndown in low demand periods. For details see, “Ontario Needs More Than 2000 MW of New Nuclear” By 2018 there will be 10,700 MW of installed wind, solar and bioenergy – let us assume 8,500 MW of installed wind – and 9,000 MW of hydro, including run-of-the-river and storage. The gas-fired generation will be maintained at its current level of over 9,500 MW – say 10,000 MW – and there will be 1,000 MW of Combined Heat and Power added to the baseload supply.
If we assume the maximum available 10,000 MW of dispatchable gas generation is on line and that it is all combined cycle and that it can get down to, say, 50 percent, then it can integrate 5,000 MW of wind. The 50 percent is an average figure since some plants may be kept at the bottom of their dispatchable range while others may be down at say 20 percent with some turbines in a multi-gas turbine plant shutdown. The other 3,500 MW of wind would have to be integrated by reducing hydro generation by 3,500 MW. If hydro can be dispatched down to the must-run hydro minimum of around say 2,000 MW it means that there must be at least 5,500 MW of hydro on line to accommodate the remaining 3,500 MW of wind.
This shows that there could be potential concerns during a day when gas and hydro are operating at less than their maximum capacity (which is most of the time) and wind kicks in since all the installed wind generation would not be able to be accommodated on the grid. However if there were high levels of export much more of this wind could be accommodated. This also has technical advantages since the combined cycle gas turbine generators on the grid might not have to be powered down below their dispatchable range of around 70 to 100 percent of full power. When in their dispatchable range the units can respond appropriately to dispatches sent every five minutes by the IESO. When operating below their dispatchable range they might not be able to raise power quickly enough if the wind suddenly drops, putting the grid at risk. The safe and reliable operation of Ontario’s nuclear units depends to a certain extent on the reliability of the grid to which they are connected. In the future, without exports, there could be insufficient dispatchable gas and coal-fired generation available on the grid that could be powered back to accommodate the potential wind generation. Exports maximize the amount of wind that can be integrated into the grid and improves the grid reliability. This is explained in detail in, http://coldaircurrents.blogspot.com/2011/01/more-wind-means-more-risk-to-ontario.html
Minister Duguid recently said that ”exporting Ontario power at prices lower than those paid by the province’s consumers makes sense”. Exporting at prices that do not include the Global Adjustment (GA) charge that Ontario consumers pay does not make sense. In a properly run system this would not happen. The only possible rationale for this is that the gas-fired non-utility generators have been contracted by the Ontario Power Authority to supply a certain amount of megawatt hours per year, for many years, and they get paid even if their supply is not needed by Ontarians. Without this type of contract the generators would only produce what was needed and consumers would save on the GA charge and less fuel would be burned with less accompanying pollution. The financial saving is shown in the lowest plot on http://morecoldair.blogspot.com/2011/01/mcguinty-thinks-this-is-fun-it-hasnt.html Something is better than nothing in Minister Duguid’s case only because of the poor management of the electricity system.
This shows that rather than trying to minimize the output of gas and coal-fired generation technical and financial issues will increase the output, burning more gas and producing more Ontario pollution. With controversial unconventional shale gas becoming more of the mix, gas prices are surely to rise. With large amounts of installed wind coming on to the grid and without exports the grid reliability will be reduced.
Follow the wind power money
By Don Waffle, The Windsor Star February 2, 2011
What's the dirty secret behind Dalton McGuinty's clean energy program? Why did McGuinty choose the most expensive plan possible for harnessing wind power to generate electricity?
Public ownership of wind energy generation would supply kilowatts at rates competitive with traditional hydro generation.
Once equipment was paid for, electricity from wind would be virtually free.
McGuinty chose private ownership. In doing so, he designed profit to private developers so generous they can contemplate the horrendous cost of building wind farms out in the Great Lakes.
He opted to commit ratepayers to the high cost of private borrowing from private banks. Turbines erected on public land like hydro corridors would save farmland and save ratepayers almost $200,000 over the life of each tower.
For this, Ontario gets obsolescent and short shelf-life technology.
Governments in the earlier part of the last century worked to keep the cost low on vital services. Hence the term "public" applied to hydro and water utilities and highways.
Directly after the Second World War, Ontario converted from 25 to 60 cycle AC power.
Every electric motor in the province was removed, rewound and replaced. This was done without disrupting the economy.
In contrast, the primary function of politics and the parties today is to shovel the public's money into private pockets.
The debacle of power privatization in California seemed to slam shut our Ontario government's agenda to turn hydro over to private ownership.
With the clean energy program, party strategists saw McGuinty's great chance to please profit-hungry banks and global corporations and investors, at the expense of Ontario's economy and its people.
He did an end run. Clean energy is henceforth privately owned.
Ontario ratepayers are on the hook with home and industry-busting private electricity rates.
Does the McGuinty government really care about clean energy or Ontario saddled with obsolete wind technology?
DON WAFFLE, Harrow
Read more: http://www.windsorstar.com/technology/Follow+wind+power+money/4208909/story.html#ixzz1CoxdFxRG
What's the dirty secret behind Dalton McGuinty's clean energy program? Why did McGuinty choose the most expensive plan possible for harnessing wind power to generate electricity?
Public ownership of wind energy generation would supply kilowatts at rates competitive with traditional hydro generation.
Once equipment was paid for, electricity from wind would be virtually free.
McGuinty chose private ownership. In doing so, he designed profit to private developers so generous they can contemplate the horrendous cost of building wind farms out in the Great Lakes.
He opted to commit ratepayers to the high cost of private borrowing from private banks. Turbines erected on public land like hydro corridors would save farmland and save ratepayers almost $200,000 over the life of each tower.
For this, Ontario gets obsolescent and short shelf-life technology.
Governments in the earlier part of the last century worked to keep the cost low on vital services. Hence the term "public" applied to hydro and water utilities and highways.
Directly after the Second World War, Ontario converted from 25 to 60 cycle AC power.
Every electric motor in the province was removed, rewound and replaced. This was done without disrupting the economy.
In contrast, the primary function of politics and the parties today is to shovel the public's money into private pockets.
The debacle of power privatization in California seemed to slam shut our Ontario government's agenda to turn hydro over to private ownership.
With the clean energy program, party strategists saw McGuinty's great chance to please profit-hungry banks and global corporations and investors, at the expense of Ontario's economy and its people.
He did an end run. Clean energy is henceforth privately owned.
Ontario ratepayers are on the hook with home and industry-busting private electricity rates.
Does the McGuinty government really care about clean energy or Ontario saddled with obsolete wind technology?
DON WAFFLE, Harrow
Read more: http://www.windsorstar.com/technology/Follow+wind+power+money/4208909/story.html#ixzz1CoxdFxRG
McGuinty's plans will doom Ontario
By Pete Szabo, The Windsor Star February 2, 2011
In December 2010, on Global TV a spokesperson who has knowledge about Ontario hydro stated that hydro bills will not double in 2012, they will quadruple, and the Ontario deficit will be close to $80 billion and that includes our current deficit of $13 billion and here is why.
The spokesperson stated that Dalton McGuinty and Dwight Duncan will purchase thousands of wind turbines and scatter them all across Ontario.
Living or being near these can cause health problems over time. This is a fact. Wind turbines have a hefty price tag for their upkeep and so do two more nuclear power plants that McGuinty wants to build at a deficit increasing cost of $50 billion to $60 billion.
The spokesperson on Global TV also stated that McGuinty and Duncan will leave Ontario and will not be around to see and hear how happy the taxpayers will be. Taxpayers have the HST for one reason and that is to pay for McGuinty's and Duncan's mistakes.
Personally, I am upset that these two politicians will cause a never-ending tax burden to the taxpayers of Ontario. In closing, some of what I have written came from articles printed in The Windsor Star on March 2, 2005.
Read more: http://www.windsorstar.com/McGuinty+plans+will+doom+Ontario/4208900/story.html#ixzz1CowxAZYS
In December 2010, on Global TV a spokesperson who has knowledge about Ontario hydro stated that hydro bills will not double in 2012, they will quadruple, and the Ontario deficit will be close to $80 billion and that includes our current deficit of $13 billion and here is why.
The spokesperson stated that Dalton McGuinty and Dwight Duncan will purchase thousands of wind turbines and scatter them all across Ontario.
Living or being near these can cause health problems over time. This is a fact. Wind turbines have a hefty price tag for their upkeep and so do two more nuclear power plants that McGuinty wants to build at a deficit increasing cost of $50 billion to $60 billion.
The spokesperson on Global TV also stated that McGuinty and Duncan will leave Ontario and will not be around to see and hear how happy the taxpayers will be. Taxpayers have the HST for one reason and that is to pay for McGuinty's and Duncan's mistakes.
Personally, I am upset that these two politicians will cause a never-ending tax burden to the taxpayers of Ontario. In closing, some of what I have written came from articles printed in The Windsor Star on March 2, 2005.
Read more: http://www.windsorstar.com/McGuinty+plans+will+doom+Ontario/4208900/story.html#ixzz1CowxAZYS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)