New electricity rates

[jimmer]

 

That is standard for chief executive level positions in large companies.

 

In theory you have to pay the big bucks to get the top talent. Unfortunately, I don't see any evidence that they (large companies in general) are actually getting top talent.

I hear you, I just never agreed that paying people big bucks will get the best of the bunch. My conspiracy theory is that it is just a way to line each other's pockets. You can apply that to politicians also.

We're all hurting and hearing those kind of payouts just shoves the knife in a little farther.

[Mister G]

Somebody has to pay for those outrageous solar rates that the liberal government subsidizes....vote for Trudeau and you just might get a carbon tax too!!!

Every time a wind mill goes up so do our electric rates. And they are as ugly as hell to look at.

[Mister G]

Well, we are paying for the past through the debt reduction charge, but we are also paying for the green initiative and the exorbinate price tag associated with it. We are also paying other jurisdictions to take our "extra power" . How on gods green earth is it that we are paying New York State to take our power.

I've said this before, but why are individual households subsidising industry's electricity costs. "On Peak" is the result of businesses using hydro to run their business. Should they then should the lion's share of the cost vs individual home owners? Does this wonderful government expect me to cook dinner on my electric stove at 9:00 at night. Should all my weekend time be devoted to laundry so I can afford the run my appliances.

It's a mockery of a travisty. Did anyone else notice on the news recently that Canadians pay the highest monthly charges for cell phone? Transit costs near the top of the world as well. It's not like we get "world class" service from any of these goevernment insitutions.

Somethings going to give and it aint gonna be pretty.

HH

You can't have everything for free.........LOL

[Steve]

here's the link to compare to USA hydro rates, by state.

 

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_5_6_a

 

 

edit:

 

so I had a closer look at the above link. it appears the US states do not use a tiered cost structure like we do here in Ontario. when comparing the new Ontario hydro prices to the 51 states, you would have to look at all three of our pricing structures.

 

our off peak price at 8.3 cents per kw is cheaper than all 51 states. but honestly, how many of us can afford to run electricity at off peak times...in reality, most of us are sleeping.

 

so the mid peak price at 12.8 cents is a more accurate comparison to the US rates. compared to the 51 US states, our mid peak price of 12.8 cents is better than 25 of the 51 states. So right in the middle. Further, on the link, it shows the overall average price for all 51 states combined is 12.98 cents per kw.

 

coincidentally, that is basically the exactly price as our mid peak power price.

 

however, where we truly get screwed is the on peak power price at 17.5 cents. Only 9 of the 51 states have higher prices than 17.5 cents...

 

so essentially, if you can use on the off peak, your getting your power cheaper than all 51 states. if you use it at mid peak, your paying exactly what the US pays on average. If you use it during peak power, well, your getting screwed....and that sucks!!

Edited October 16, 2015 by Steve

[dave524]

Every time a wind mill goes up so do our electric rates. And they are as ugly as hell to look at.

 

Saw this recently, seems it is not too far from the truth

 

http://www.snopes.com/wind-idiot-power/

 

 

 

[Steve]

I read that snopes link you provided above (did you?).

 

The concept of net energy must be applied to renewable sources of energy, such as windmills and photovoltaics. A two-megawatt windmill contains 260 tonnes of steel requiring 170 tonnes of coking coal and 300 tonnes of iron ore, all mined, transported and produced by hydrocarbons. The question is: how long must a windmill generate energy before it creates more energy than it took to build it? At a good wind site, the energy payback day could be in three years or less; in a poor location, energy payback may be never. That is, a windmill could spin until it falls apart and never generate as much energy as was invested in building it.

 

Now, when you alter someone's comments to fit an agenda, it shows ulterior motive.

 

Before a wind park is constructed, developers erect meteorological towers (MET towers) that registers wind speeds over long periods of time. This way the developer can accurately estimate the cost return on a project.

 

Developers in this province do not develop in "poor" locations.

 

As such, a 3 year period (or less) is what it takes to reach a net benefit for clean power on our grid.

 

The Ontario Power Authority contracts are all 20 year guaranteed rate contracts. That mean these turbines will be up for a minimum of 20 years. After three years or less, they are now a net positive. not so bad when you actually read the facts.

Edited October 17, 2015 by Steve

[leaf4]

I read that snopes link you provided above (did you?).

 

 

The concept of net energy must be applied to renewable sources of energy, such as windmills and photovoltaics. A two-megawatt windmill contains 260 tonnes of steel requiring 170 tonnes of coking coal and 300 tonnes of iron ore, all mined, transported and produced by hydrocarbons. The question is: how long must a windmill generate energy before it creates more energy than it took to build it? At a good wind site, the energy payback day could be in three years or less; in a poor location, energy payback may be never. That is, a windmill could spin until it falls apart and never generate as much energy as was invested in building it.

Now, when you alter someone's comments to fit an agenda, it shows ulterior motive.

 

Before a wind park is constructed, developers erect meteorological towers (MET towers) that registers wind speeds over long periods of time. This way the developer can accurately estimate the cost return on a project.

 

Developers in this province do not develop in "poor" locations.

 

As such, a 3 year period (or less) is what it takes to reach a net benefit for clean power on our grid.

 

The Ontario Power Authority contracts are all 20 year guaranteed rate contracts. That mean these turbines will be up for a minimum of 20 years. After three years or less, they are now a net positive. not so bad when you actually read the facts.

Slow clap

[dave524]

Most the time I drive by the ones here they are motionless or barely moving, I sincerely doubt they are recouping the cost in 3 years.

 

Southern Ontario in general is a less than ideal location , best locations here is a relative term.

What they are is a highly visible blight on the rural landscape and a the perfect smokescreen

for politicians and the Liberal government to point at and boast " Look at what we are doing for the environment " I just hear a low whirring noise, see an eyesore and dead migratory birds.

Keep drinking that red koolaid

Edited October 17, 2015 by dave524

[Mister G]

I read that snopes link you provided above (did you?).

 

The concept of net energy must be applied to renewable sources of energy, such as windmills and photovoltaics. A two-megawatt windmill contains 260 tonnes of steel requiring 170 tonnes of coking coal and 300 tonnes of iron ore, all mined, transported and produced by hydrocarbons. The question is: how long must a windmill generate energy before it creates more energy than it took to build it? At a good wind site, the energy payback day could be in three years or less; in a poor location, energy payback may be never. That is, a windmill could spin until it falls apart and never generate as much energy as was invested in building it.

 

Now, when you alter someone's comments to fit an agenda, it shows ulterior motive.

 

Before a wind park is constructed, developers erect meteorological towers (MET towers) that registers wind speeds over long periods of time. This way the developer can accurately estimate the cost return on a project.

 

Developers in this province do not develop in "poor" locations.

 

As such, a 3 year period (or less) is what it takes to reach a net benefit for clean power on our grid.

 

The Ontario Power Authority contracts are all 20 year guaranteed rate contracts. That mean these turbines will be up for a minimum of 20 years. After three years or less, they are now a net positive. not so bad when you actually read the facts.

However, the electric buy back to the grid is at a much higher cost, thus every time a Money Mill goes up so do our rates. Consumers lose while big business wins again.

[Canuck2fan]

Hydro has always been a disaster in Ontario.... For decades we under charged businesses, to keep them here with cheap rates. That really worked out great didn't it. My home town has rows upon rows of factories that left long before, the cost of juice increased and the current government came in. Does your home town have the same rows?

 

Along, the way we gave a monopoly the ability to issues bonds, so they could run up massive debts. EVERY project under EVERY government in Hydro's history went massively over the projected cost... Check out the nukes at Darlington as an example

 

The sad thing about the push for renewable sources, is that it was started in earnest at the worst possible time. Oil was at the high $100.00+ mark, meaning gas plants were going to cost more to run. Talk of climate change was indicating new gas plants were the way to go long term. Remember when smog alerts were a lot more numerous in the GTA? NIMBYS had shown they weren't going to allow any damn gas plant to happen anywhere near their grossly over inflated property values. Governments at every level in Canada wouldn't dare put up a parking meter without having 10 consultants do 20 different studies, much less form a new strategy, for creating renewable sources of energy.

 

Business and the consultants saw the opportunity, along with a weak government stung by every decision they had made about Hydro. So they sold them on offering huge incentives to create MORE energy, at the most expensive rates ever. Though in time those rates would be more in line with the price of non renewables because oil was only going to go up in price..... oops.

 

Weak governments, greedy businesses are never a good combination when it comes to a necessity that is traded as a commodity.

 

Now we have the sale of part of a great public asset, from a weak government to greedy businesses, as if that will somehow magically lower our rates? I hope it will, but have my doubts for historical reasons...

 

The only way any government in Ontario can lower Hydro rates from now on for rate payers is to subsidize it by having the taxpayers pick up the tab. Doesn't work for me because I am both a rate payer and taxpayer...

 

Alternately, a government could artificially freeze rates, run up debt and we could have our kids pay it off, with interest. I wonder is there still room on Harper's granddaughter's mythical credit card, maybe our kids could sweet talk her when the times comes to pay up.

 

They could also go in and seize every asset, fire everybody, hire new people to do the exact same jobs for a lot less money. Run it is a ministry providing a necessity. Tell any debt holder, enjoy your hair cut you aren't getting a dime. Strictly, monitor the cost and charge not a penny more for the juice. Have no unions, safety training or environmental concerns, cheap juice trumps any worries about the damage to the planet. Legally mandate the bare minimum for maintenance and infrastructure improvements. Jail time, for any CEO who company is working on a project that goes over budget. If we need a new plant built, build it where it makes sense. Let the NIMBY's squawk, but post their names and addresses on a website saying these are the few people who are driving up everyone else's hydro costs. After all the law suits settled, it might be cheaper maybe not...

 

In short we are going to pay more no matter what....

Edited October 17, 2015 by Canuck2fan

[dave524]

 

 

Alternately, a government could artificially freeze rates, run up debt and we could have our kids pay it off, with interest. I wonder is there still room on Harper's granddaughter's mythical credit card, maybe our kids could sweet talk her when the times comes to pay up.

 

..

 

Why the Harper sniping??? it's provincial , talk about agenda and ulterior motive .

[Canuck2fan]

 

Why the Harper sniping??? it's provincial , talk about agenda and ulterior motive .

 

The Harper "sniping" as you call it, was because according to Joe Oliver debt is OK because, Harper's granddaughter will put it all on this mythical credit card in the future... So I took the liberty of hoping it would work equally as well for ANY debt.... LOL No sense of humor in here I see.

[lookinforwalleye]

Most of the people here are pretty clueless when it comes to politics...but they are pretty skilled at copy and paste!!!

[SirCranksalot]

Hydro has always been a disaster in Ontario....

 

 

In short we are going to pay more no matter what....

 

That's your version of history. Others have their own version. I don't think there is a lot to be gained by looking back at the history and pointing fingers. No danger of the proverbial 'history repeating itself' here because times have changed so much. Past decisions were made for political rather than economic reasons and I don't see that changing any time soon. Do you?

[Steve]

However, the electric buy back to the grid is at a much higher cost, thus every time a Money Mill goes up so do our rates. Consumers lose while big business wins again.

 

Any idea what price our government pays for nuclear power?

 

And any idea of the fix guaranteed contract we gave the nuclear power plants to purchase their power, whether we actually purchase it or not?

 

I suggest some folks do some reading, and some learning, so that you become much better informed.

[Canuck2fan]

 

That's your version of history. Others have their own version. I don't think there is a lot to be gained by looking back at the history and pointing fingers. No danger of the proverbial 'history repeating itself' here because times have changed so much. Past decisions were made for political rather than economic reasons and I don't see that changing any time soon. Do you?

 

You are right it is just my version... What is yours? I believe if we don't learn from past mistakes we will just repeat them... I totally disagree past decisions were made for solely political reasons, big users were charged less because it seemed to make ECONOMIC sense.

 

Lower rates for big users were supposed to keep heavy manufacturing here in Ontario. Providing jobs with a good living for workers. Those employees would spend money, on houses, cars, and the necessities of life all while also paying taxes. It seemed like a good idea to all concerned, until the businesses left anyways for various reasons.

 

How do you think we can really and truly pay less than we are now?

[Steve]

Most the time I drive by the ones here they are motionless or barely moving, I sincerely doubt they are recouping the cost in 3 years.

 

Southern Ontario in general is a less than ideal location , best locations here is a relative term.

What they are is a highly visible blight on the rural landscape and a the perfect smokescreen

for politicians and the Liberal government to point at and boast " Look at what we are doing for the environment " I just hear a low whirring noise, see an eyesore and dead migratory birds.

Keep drinking that red koolaid

 

The ones that are motionless are under maintenance. Truthfully, you have no clue how long it takes to recoup, so your sincerest doubt is irrelevant.

 

Question: Where do you hear the whirring noise? Specifically please. As part of my job is doing decibel tests, the only way to be close enough to hear the noise is to be within 250m of one. The only way you would be that close is if you leased your OWN Land (and getting paid to do so), as government setbacks are 500m is you lease your land for one, or 1km if you don't. Testing shows the human ear can hear the "whirring sound" within 250m of the base of a 2MW turbine (and even further away for the turbines that are higher in the air).

 

This fishing board is fun to read the general public's understanding on many things in life. Food, Politics, Construction / Renovation, etc. etc. But what it also shows is the lack of education relating to many of the topics discussed.

 

And the scary part is, all the correct information is out there to be read. Most of us are simply to lazy to do so, so instead we talk about whirring sounds and dying birds, lol.

[lookinforwalleye]

Yep there is a generation here that get their knowledge via a Facebook feed....

[dave524]

Steve...I 've hunted many of the fields from the mid 60's on that are now wind turbine sites in West Lincoln and Wainfleet . Not much point in going back to them now, setting goose decoys in the shadow of one of those monstrosities isn't my cup of tea.

[manitoubass2]

 

The ones that are motionless are under maintenance. Truthfully, you have no clue how long it takes to recoup, so your sincerest doubt is irrelevant.

 

Question: Where do you hear the whirring noise? Specifically please. As part of my job is doing decibel tests, the only way to be close enough to hear the noise is to be within 250m of one. The only way you would be that close is if you leased your OWN Land (and getting paid to do so), as government setbacks are 500m is you lease your land for one, or 1km if you don't. Testing shows the human ear can hear the "whirring sound" within 250m of the base of a 2MW turbine (and even further away for the turbines that are higher in the air).

 

This fishing board is fun to read the general public's understanding on many things in life. Food, Politics, Construction / Renovation, etc. etc. But what it also shows is the lack of education relating to many of the topics discussed.

 

And the scary part is, all the correct information is out there to be read. Most of us are simply to lazy to do so, so instead we talk about whirring sounds and dying birds, lol.

Lol Im sure alot of people here still read, I know I do.

 

But I tend to read about things Im passionate about or enjoy learning.

 

Power sources isnt one of them, well maybe Tesla hes and interesting guy.

[Steve]

Steve...I 've hunted many of the fields from the mid 60's on that are now wind turbine sites in West Lincoln and Wainfleet . Not much point in going back to them now, setting goose decoys in the shadow of one of those monstrosities isn't my cup of tea.

 

so now we have gotten to the bottom of it....

 

folks who have leased their land to the wind developers, because they felt it fit their financial and future goals, have decided to use their land for that purpose, and not your hunting purpose....

 

usually when you get to the bottom of these things, it usually comes back to nimby'ism...in your case, it wasn't even your back yard.

 

no one is forcing land owners to put turbines on their property....it's the land owners who have decided to lease their land....in the province on Ontario and Quebec, there are more land owners offering their land than their are developers to put turbines on the land.....

[SirCranksalot]

 

I believe if we don't learn from past mistakes we will just repeat them.

 

I agree in general, but the situation in the past was so different from what it is now or likely to be in the future that there are limited lessons to be learned. If there is a lesson, it's that decisions should be made based on economics rather than politics but, as I said, I just don't see that happening. I agree that it was partly economic in the past----a stable power supply at cost was a major factor in the industrialization of Ont. OTOH, a large part of the D'ton overrun was due to D Peterson putting the plant on hold after Hydro had purchased major eqpt and was paying the mid-teen interest rates current in the mid-eighties.. Which is not to say there was no mis-management---always lots of that to go around in the past as well as today.

[dave524]

 

so now we have gotten to the bottom of it....

 

folks who have leased their land to the wind developers, because they felt it fit their financial and future goals, have decided to use their land for that purpose, and not your hunting purpose....

 

usually when you get to the bottom of these things, it usually comes back to nimby'ism...in your case, it wasn't even your back yard.

 

no one is forcing land owners to put turbines on their property....it's the land owners who have decided to lease their land....in the province on Ontario and Quebec, there are more land owners offering their land than their are developers to put turbines on the land.....

 

The size of these things it's everyone in the area's backyard whether you own the land or not. Lease? more like a bribe, everyone has a price, especially farmers who have an increasingly difficult time of making a go of it on the family farm.

BTW I hear the next site for wind turbines is a string of them 1/4 mile offshore between Beamsville and Port Dalhousie

I don't hunt anymore, age related health issues, but it pains me to see places that have good memories for me fall to such questionable technology.

 

 

Edit: do you really think they would not go in even if everyone refused to lease their land?

Edited October 17, 2015 by dave524

[2 tone z71]

The local band office down home just finished a environmental study to put up a windmill farm basically across the front of henvey inlet and key harbour ,I think it will just add to the mystic untouched beauty of the French River ??

[Steve]

 

The size of these things it's everyone in the area's backyard whether you own the land or not. Lease? more like a bribe, everyone has a price, especially farmers who have an increasingly difficult time of making a go of it on the family farm.

BTW I hear the next site for wind turbines is a string of them 1/4 mile offshore between Beamsville and Port Dalhousie

I don't hunt anymore, age related health issues, but it pains me to see places that have good memories for me fall to such questionable technology.

 

 

Edit: do you really think they would not go in even if everyone refused to lease their land?

 

keep running scared. again, 1km setback for a non leased land owner....no, these are not 1km in height.....

 

a bribe? keep running scared.

 

the fact that farmers have options for their land, when crops can not be grown any longer (for any number of reasons), it a great thing...just ask the farmers.

 

questionable technology? As I already said, do some reading, these are not new. The technology is not questionable.

 

and yes, I do believe they would have gone even if land owners didn't lease their lands....because, please, don't take this the wrong way, native reserves all over the province are lining up to lease their land.....for wind or solar....government will not use crown land.

 

finally, there is a moratorium against off shore wind development, and with our country having so much unused land, I will never see offshore wind in my lifetime (nor will you).

 

I understand finding information for yourself can be tough, so if you want real information, just ask....my daily job is insuring solar, wind, and small hydro. It is my job to know about every part of the process....from pre land leasing, to covering land prior to development, to the actual development, to the completed development and future 20 year operation. This includes all the environmental aspects, especially when relating to pollution. (as we cover pollution losses).

 

Just don't be afraid of something you don't understand. Read. Learn. Educate.

Yes, green energy is not perfect. But it is getting much better.