The total cost of wind generation also increased from 2009 to 2012. This was due primarily to more wind generation coming into service. In all, the increased cost of wind generation accounted for about 5% of the increase in the total customer bill, or about 10% of the increase in the cost of electricity supply.
The report's author, mind you, is the Canadian Wind Energy Association, which is a trade association for wind power developers. Mind you, they are writing in response to a Fraser Institute report (Environmental and Economic Consequences of Ontario’s Green Energy Act) authored by Ross McKitrick, so you might as well stamp "loony" on the cover of that baby. And the math is pretty simple: the effect of wind energy on Ontario hydro bills is pretty small.
9 comments:
Come now, if one cannot trust Ross M and the Fraser Institute who can one trust? Oh yes, just about anyone
That graph you posted looks like a candidate for the worst graph of the year. Is is actually intended to convey any information?
61Hmmm, out here in Ontario Hydro country not too far east of all those turbines and Bruce Nuclear the 'cost of delivery' is about 55% of my bill. Mind you at times like this when much of the countryside is still without power due to the ice storm I do not begrudge those linesmem one penny of it!
Can you please point out all the inaccuracies of McKitricks report? Actually, what's loony is this incomplete report that Big Wind decided to hang onto until the Fraser report came out. What's totally missing in this Burlington report is the additional costs wind poses in the form of gas plant back-up, additional transmission lines, the spilling of cheaper hydro ( Adam Beck facility), the steaming off of nuclear. The costs as well of selling our excess off at huge losses when wind decides to join the party like a drunken uncle at a party. Not needed and at all the wrong times. All these facilities still have to be at the ready when wind decides to vanish and conventional, reliable sources take it's place again. As an example, today the wind output at the Amaranth facility went from 97mw at 1 am to 40mw at 6am. At Underwood, 76mw to 28mw.
The wind industry is pathologically incapable of presenting the full story, and therefore the real costs.
This study answers the narrow question of what is the effect of wind on your Hydro Bill. McKitrick says look at how high hydro bills are in Ontario vs. other areas. This study suggests wind is not the main reason, which anyone who has followed this debate since the Mike Harris years would realize.
As to selling off excess, it isn't just necessary for wind. Nuclear is sometimes available when not needed, because you can't just turn off a reactor.
Excellent material as always. That people would choose to believe a libertarian think tank with specific ideological goals over independent and intelligently analyzed numbers is always amazing to me.
The recent hydro rate increase has included the cost of the gas plant relocation. You have to look at all aspects of the the GEA and how it translates to your bill. Increases in transmission costs for example. Wind may not be the only reason, but it's the majority reason,. Look at all the jurisdictions who've dived in deep to the green energy hot tub. It's no coincidence that they all have the highest rates around. Germany, UK, Denmark, California , Ontario. It's no wonder manufacturing is leaving Ont.
As for nuclear,which happens to be more flexible than wind,( steaming off) it doesn't even approach any value in generation that would point to it being a problem. Our minimum demand is around 12,500mw- 13,000mw. Nuclear is humming along providing us with a reliable baseload generation of between 9500mw and 10,000mw. To suggest nuclear is a problem is more of an emotional argument than a practical one.
By the way, wind which was giving us 518mw at 1 am is now providing a whopping 160mw as of 8am, as the demand for the day is on the rise. Even more ironic still,at this pathetic production, the big fossil fuel companies such as Enbridge and Suncor are still sucking $millions out of the province like a lamprey on a lake trout.
The Mississauga gas plant was intended to make up for the closing of Lakeview coal. It has nothing to do with wind energy unless you believe some secret conspiracy theory.
So why didn't they convert Lakeview at a fraction of the cost?
As for Nuclear Power are the costs of dealing with the waste factored into the costs to the customer in their monthly bill? Or are they externalised to the customer via taxation?
There's a lot of waste hanging around the various sites awaiting a solution to the issue of what to do with it and the solution won't be cheap.
Maybe we can dispose of it at deactivated wind farm sites, but I've a funny feeling that that solution won't be acceptable to the NIMBYs who are suffering due to turbine whatever either.
Post a Comment