Ontario implements plan to promote renewables.

Today, I ran across this article titled
"It pays to make your own power in Ontario" http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationworld/sfl-acanenergy28oct28,0,4220011.story?coll=sfla-news-nationworld
" Starting in November, the 90 or so local utilities throughout Ontario will begin paying anyone producing solar power 42 cents a kilowatt hour. Wind, hydro- or bio-electric production will bring 11 to 14.5 cents a kilowatt hour.
In addition to getting paid for making electricity, homeowners and businesses slash their own electricity draw from the grid, where power sells at an average of about 5.8 cents a kilowatt hour across the province. "
Ontario isn't the best place for solar.. but this is a very positive step in the right direction. And another government now comprehends that their dependency on fossil fuels has severe consequences.

On 28 Oct 2006 06:55:34 -0700, "T.Keating" wrote:

Today, I ran across this article titled
"It pays to make your own power in Ontario" http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationworld/sfl-acanenergy28oct28,0,4220011.story?coll=sfla-news-nationworld
" Starting in November, the 90 or so local utilities throughout Ontario will begin paying anyone producing solar power 42 cents a kilowatt hour. Wind, hydro- or bio-electric production will bring 11 to 14.5 cents a kilowatt hour.
In addition to getting paid for making electricity, homeowners and businesses slash their own electricity draw from the grid, where power sells at an average of about 5.8 cents a kilowatt hour across the province. "
Ontario isn't the best place for solar.. but this is a very positive step in the right direction. And another government now comprehends that their dependency on fossil fuels has severe consequences.

Why would you be paid a differant rate based on how the power is made. Is solar electricty of higher quality than wind, hydro or bio mass? Doesnt make sense. If ppl make their own power and sell it into the grid , why does it matter how they make it.

Mauried wrote:

On 28 Oct 2006 06:55:34 -0700, "T.Keating" wrote: " Starting in November, the 90 or so local utilities throughout Ontario will begin paying anyone producing solar power 42 cents a kilowatt hour. Wind, hydro- or bio-electric production will bring 11 to 14.5 cents a kilowatt hour.
Why would you be paid a differant rate based on how the power is made. Is solar electricty of higher quality than wind, hydro or bio mass?

Yes, solar electricity is better than coal, oil or biomass in that it doesn't produce pollution. It's better than wind and hydro because it doesn't kill birds or fish.
If it wasn't better, would people pay more for it?
Anthony

"Anthony Matonak" wrote in message

Mauried wrote: On 28 Oct 2006 06:55:34 -0700, "T.Keating" wrote: " Starting in November, the 90 or so local utilities throughout Ontario will begin paying anyone producing solar power 42 cents a kilowatt hour. Wind, hydro- or bio-electric production will bring 11 to 14.5 cents a kilowatt hour.
Why would you be paid a differant rate based on how the power is made. Is solar electricty of higher quality than wind, hydro or bio mass?
Yes, solar electricity is better than coal, oil or biomass in that it doesn't produce pollution. It's better than wind and hydro because it doesn't kill birds or fish.
If it wasn't better, would people pay more for it?
Anthony

In the late 90s in California, Green Mountain and other green power brokers asked rate payers if they would pay more for non-polluting power and many said yes. More people signed up to pay about 20% more for clean electricity than they had green power to supply. So many more were on the waiting list that it should have caused more green power to go into production. But it did not and I suspect it had more to do with the capital markets unwilling to fund such investments than it did with market forces or those that were willing to supply the market.

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 02:18:23 GMT, "SJC" wrote:

"Anthony Matonak" wrote in message Mauried wrote: On 28 Oct 2006 06:55:34 -0700, "T.Keating" wrote: " Starting in November, the 90 or so local utilities throughout Ontario will begin paying anyone producing solar power 42 cents a kilowatt hour. Wind, hydro- or bio-electric production will bring 11 to 14.5 cents a kilowatt hour.
Why would you be paid a differant rate based on how the power is made. Is solar electricty of higher quality than wind, hydro or bio mass?
Yes, solar electricity is better than coal, oil or biomass in that it doesn't produce pollution. It's better than wind and hydro because it doesn't kill birds or fish.
If it wasn't better, would people pay more for it?
Anthony
In the late 90s in California, Green Mountain and other green power brokers asked rate payers if they would pay more for non-polluting power and many said yes. More people signed up to pay about 20% more for clean electricity than they had green power to supply. So many more were on the waiting list that it should have caused more green power to go into production. But it did not and I suspect it had more to do with the capital markets unwilling to fund such investments than it did with market forces or those that were willing to supply the market.

Indeed, exactly the same thing happened right where I live. The local power company offered ppl a chance to pay more for "Green Power" so that more investment in renewable power could be made. The scheme was a total flop, in that simply insufficient ppl elected to buy the higher priced electricity. In a similar vein the Aus Govt started a scheme a few years ago to provide substantial subsidies (up to $4000 per installation) for ppl who elected to install solar power systems in their homes. The scheme was ultimately abandoned due to lack of interest.
I also wonder about the "lack of pollution in solar systems." The solar cells dont produce any after they are made , but making them causes heaps, espacially making the aluminium for the frames (check out the energy efficiency of aluminium smelters) , and making the lead acid batteries that are needed at night time are anything but pollution free. Ever lived in a town with a Lead Smelter.

"Mauried" wrote in message

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 02:18:23 GMT, "SJC" wrote:
"Anthony Matonak" wrote in message Mauried wrote: On 28 Oct 2006 06:55:34 -0700, "T.Keating" wrote: " Starting in November, the 90 or so local utilities throughout Ontario will begin paying anyone producing solar power 42 cents a kilowatt hour. Wind, hydro- or bio-electric production will bring 11 to 14.5 cents a kilowatt hour.
Why would you be paid a differant rate based on how the power is made. Is solar electricty of higher quality than wind, hydro or bio mass?
Yes, solar electricity is better than coal, oil or biomass in that it doesn't produce pollution. It's better than wind and hydro because it doesn't kill birds or fish.
If it wasn't better, would people pay more for it?
Anthony
In the late 90s in California, Green Mountain and other green power brokers asked rate payers if they would pay more for non-polluting power and many said yes. More people signed up to pay about 20% more for clean electricity than they had green power to supply. So many more were on the waiting list that it should have caused more green power to go into production. But it did not and I suspect it had more to do with the capital markets unwilling to fund such investments than it did with market forces or those that were willing to supply the market.
Indeed, exactly the same thing happened right where I live. The local power company offered ppl a chance to pay more for "Green Power" so that more investment in renewable power could be made. The scheme was a total flop, in that simply insufficient ppl elected to buy the higher priced electricity. In a similar vein the Aus Govt started a scheme a few years ago to provide substantial subsidies (up to $4000 per installation) for ppl who elected to install solar power systems in their homes. The scheme was ultimately abandoned due to lack of interest.
I also wonder about the "lack of pollution in solar systems." The solar cells dont produce any after they are made , but making them causes heaps, espacially making the aluminium for the frames (check out the energy efficiency of aluminium smelters) , and making the lead acid batteries that are needed at night time are anything but pollution free. Ever lived in a town with a Lead Smelter.
Making cars causes pollution, but they do not make energy, they consume it.

Myth: Wind turbines don't kill birds. Your neighbourhood cat or local high-rise do worse.
"Anthony Matonak" wrote

Yes, solar electricity is better than coal, oil or biomass in that it doesn't produce pollution. It's better than wind and hydro because it doesn't kill birds or fish.

"Mauried" wrote in message

Is solar electricty of higher quality than wind, hydro or bio mass? Doesnt make sense.

Hydro and biomass can be used to produce more useful electricity on demand, which is more valuable than inherently intermittent power like solar or wind.
Karl Johanson

"Mauried" wrote in message

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 02:18:23 GMT, "SJC" wrote:
"Anthony Matonak" wrote in message Mauried wrote: On 28 Oct 2006 06:55:34 -0700, "T.Keating" wrote: " Starting in November, the 90 or so local utilities throughout Ontario will begin paying anyone producing solar power 42 cents a kilowatt hour. Wind, hydro- or bio-electric production will bring 11 to 14.5 cents a kilowatt hour.
Why would you be paid a differant rate based on how the power is made. Is solar electricty of higher quality than wind, hydro or bio mass?
Yes, solar electricity is better than coal, oil or biomass in that it doesn't produce pollution. It's better than wind and hydro because it doesn't kill birds or fish.
If it wasn't better, would people pay more for it?
Anthony
In the late 90s in California, Green Mountain and other green power brokers asked rate payers if they would pay more for non-polluting power and many said yes. More people signed up to pay about 20% more for clean electricity than they had green power to supply. So many more were on the waiting list that it should have caused more green power to go into production. But it did not and I suspect it had more to do with the capital markets unwilling to fund such investments than it did with market forces or those that were willing to supply the market.
Indeed, exactly the same thing happened right where I live. The local power company offered ppl a chance to pay more for "Green Power" so that more investment in renewable power could be made. The scheme was a total flop, in that simply insufficient ppl elected to buy the higher priced electricity. In a similar vein the Aus Govt started a scheme a few years ago to provide substantial subsidies (up to $4000 per installation) for ppl who elected to install solar power systems in their homes. The scheme was ultimately abandoned due to lack of interest.
I also wonder about the "lack of pollution in solar systems." The solar cells dont produce any after they are made , but making them causes heaps, espacially making the aluminium for the frames (check out the energy efficiency of aluminium smelters) , and making the lead acid batteries that are needed at night time are anything but pollution free. Ever lived in a town with a Lead Smelter.

Lead batteries are recyclable. Grid-tie solar doesn't need any batteries at all. And why does the frame *have* to be made of Al?
daestrom

Welcome to the world of feel good politics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Mauried" wrote in message

On 28 Oct 2006 06:55:34 -0700, "T.Keating" <tkgoogle@ktcnslt.com wrote:
Why would you be paid a differant rate based on how the power is made. Is solar electricty of higher quality than wind, hydro or bio mass? Doesnt make sense.

Hydro kills birds.
------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Richard P." wrote in message

Myth: Wind turbines don't kill birds. Your neighbourhood cat or local high-rise do worse.

Ok this is how it is going to work.
They are going to shut down 1 one-megawatt coal plant and replace it with solar.
Since Ontario only gets around 3 hours full sun yearly average per day, you will need 8 Megawatts of panel.
But.. oh wait..you need to store it.
No problem - we will use HYDROGEN!!
So. a 40% conversion rate from water to hydrogen. That means you now need about 20 Megawatts of solar panels
With a typical solar panel, you get around 150 watts per square meter. So you need around 135,000 square meters of solar panels to equal one coal plant, or approximately 1.35 million square feet.
Not to mention that the 20 megawatts of panel, all the associated hydrogen generating and storage, etc etc will cost around $250,000,000.

Windsun wrote:

Hydro kills birds.

Do wind turbines kill fish ?
Graham

Windsun wrote:

Ok this is how it is going to work.
They are going to shut down 1 one-megawatt coal plant and replace it with solar.
Since Ontario only gets around 3 hours full sun yearly average per day, you will need 8 Megawatts of panel.
But.. oh wait..you need to store it.
No problem - we will use HYDROGEN!!
So. a 40% conversion rate from water to hydrogen. That means you now need about 20 Megawatts of solar panels
With a typical solar panel, you get around 150 watts per square meter. So you need around 135,000 square meters of solar panels to equal one coal plant, or approximately 1.35 million square feet.
Not to mention that the 20 megawatts of panel, all the associated hydrogen generating and storage, etc etc will cost around $250,000,000.

Do the sums for a 1GW power station and you're talking $250 billion !
Graham

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 13:59:50 GMT, "daestrom" wrote:

"Mauried" wrote in message On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 02:18:23 GMT, "SJC" wrote: "Anthony Matonak" wrote in message Mauried wrote: On 28 Oct 2006 06:55:34 -0700, "T.Keating" wrote: " Starting in November, the 90 or so local utilities throughout Ontario will begin paying anyone producing solar power 42 cents a kilowatt hour. Wind, hydro- or bio-electric production will bring 11 to 14.5 cents a kilowatt hour.
Why would you be paid a differant rate based on how the power is made. Is solar electricty of higher quality than wind, hydro or bio mass?
Yes, solar electricity is better than coal, oil or biomass in that it doesn't produce pollution. It's better than wind and hydro because it doesn't kill birds or fish.
If it wasn't better, would people pay more for it?
Anthony
In the late 90s in California, Green Mountain and other green power brokers asked rate payers if they would pay more for non-polluting power and many said yes. More people signed up to pay about 20% more for clean electricity than they had green power to supply. So many more were on the waiting list that it should have caused more green power to go into production. But it did not and I suspect it had more to do with the capital markets unwilling to fund such investments than it did with market forces or those that were willing to supply the market.
Indeed, exactly the same thing happened right where I live. The local power company offered ppl a chance to pay more for "Green Power" so that more investment in renewable power could be made. The scheme was a total flop, in that simply insufficient ppl elected to buy the higher priced electricity. In a similar vein the Aus Govt started a scheme a few years ago to provide substantial subsidies (up to $4000 per installation) for ppl who elected to install solar power systems in their homes. The scheme was ultimately abandoned due to lack of interest.
I also wonder about the "lack of pollution in solar systems." The solar cells dont produce any after they are made , but making them causes heaps, espacially making the aluminium for the frames (check out the energy efficiency of aluminium smelters) , and making the lead acid batteries that are needed at night time are anything but pollution free. Ever lived in a town with a Lead Smelter.
Lead batteries are recyclable. Grid-tie solar doesn't need any batteries at all. And why does the frame *have* to be made of Al?

Aluminium is a great choice. SInce it's lightweight and does not corrode easily.
It is correct that it takes a lot of energy to produce aluminum. But it takes a lot less to reuse aluminium.
As recycling rates go up, the energy cost of aluminum goes down.
I have no idea what energy it takes to make one frame from bauxite. But I feel confident that this is "repayed" trougout the lifetime of the panel.
AFAIK most of the aluminum is made from hydropwer. (Even though the bauxite is transported halfway around the globe.)
-- SEE YA !!! Trygve Lillefosse AKA - Malawi, The Fisher King