Wind turbines to go at Sandbanks Park

[KLINKER]

With water on both sides and sand underneath at 3 different temperatures has to be the best place for turbines, I guess someone would figure it out sooner or later.

[Joeytier]

The maintenance techs must be licking their chops

[Weeds]

Do you have a link to this story? I've been camping there forever, would love to know a little more about this. Last I heard about them putting up wind turbines was going to be well on the other side of the county.

[Big Cliff]

With jerks like Wynne lining the pockets of her buddies of course they are going to put up wind turbines. Just like the ones on Hwy. 115/35 that haven't turned a blade since the day they were installed. Don't worry, your hydro bills will pay for it and the budget will balance itself!

[Old Ironmaker]

With jerks like Wynne lining the pockets of her buddies of course they are going to put up wind turbines. Just like the ones on Hwy. 115/35 that haven't turned a blade since the day they were installed. Don't worry, your hydro bills will pay for it and the budget will balance itself!

I have no objections of the use of Wind for energy, we have come to live with them out here, we are surrounded by them in Haldimand and Norfolk. We have 3 of these giants close enough I can hear them at times. Whoop,,,,,,whoop,,,,,,whoop. They don't bother me, they might help me get to sleep at night if I can hear them from inside, of which we can not. What is asinine is the rate our wise leaders are paying for the energy, about a buck per KWH was the last number I read rather than the market rate of 10 cents per KWH. This was in the works for many years. She can't take all the blame, one would never think that She would adjust the ridiculous rates the non Canadian companies get paid for a kilowatt hour of electricity.

[Sinker]

With jerks like Wynne lining the pockets of her buddies of course they are going to put up wind turbines. Just like the ones on Hwy. 115/35 that haven't turned a blade since the day they were installed. Don't worry, your hydro bills will pay for it and the budget will balance itself!

3 of them are turning now. I hate looking at them. Waste of money. Maybe if my hydro bill dropped with each one installed, but it just keeps going up....

 

S.

[huzzsaba]

Being a camping junkie, seeing the wind turbines assures me my destination is close by

[Steve]

I have no objections of the use of Wind for energy, we have come to live with them out here, we are surrounded by them in Haldimand and Norfolk. We have 3 of these giants close enough I can hear them at times. Whoop,,,,,,whoop,,,,,,whoop. They don't bother me, they might help me get to sleep at night if I can hear them from inside, of which we can not. What is asinine is the rate our wise leaders are paying for the energy, about a buck per KWH was the last number I read rather than the market rate of 10 cents per KWH. This was in the works for many years. She can't take all the blame, one would never think that She would adjust the ridiculous rates the non Canadian companies get paid for a kilowatt hour of electricity.

 

http://fit.powerauthority.on.ca/fit-program/fit-program-pricing/fit-price-schedule

 

I know there are TONS of misinformation out there...and I mean tons....A buck per KWH has never ever been paid ... not even FIT 1.0 when cost to install was 3.5 x's what it is now.

 

Anyway, wind is paying 12.8c a KW/h.

 

We pay 13.6c a KW/h for subsidized nuclear power.

 

So we purchase wind power cheaper than nuclear power.

 

Hope this helps clear up some of the misinformation out there.

[Big Cliff]

And what does it cost to build windmills that sit there without turning a blade and who's money is being paid to whom to do it? What are the other costs associated with it; land, maint. enviromental?

 

How do those costs compair to solar generated power? I tried looking at the link but things like "on shore wind", I'm not sure how that applies to wind turbines stuck up in the Kawarthas, I haven't see them turn a blade, (guess they might be too far from the shore) but I bet they are still costing us money.

[Steve]

on shore means on land big cliff. ie, not in the water.

 

read the link to see the solar power amount paid per KW/h.

 

and no, if the blades aren't turning, it isn't costing tax payers a dollar.

these are privately built farms, so if the blades aren't turning, the private operator isn't receiving money.

 

oh, a wind mill "mills grain", you are looking for info on wind turbines, that generate electricity.

 

hope this helps clarify some of your questions Cliff.

[Steve]

re-reading your post Cliff it appears you may believe the construction costs of these wind farms and solar farms are paid by the government (and thus, us, the tax payer).

 

That isn't the case.

 

100% of the cost of development is private dollars. The government than purchases the power (at the prices in the link above). That is where you and I, the tax payer come in.

 

So if your technically AGAINST green energy, you should be applauding the sites where the turbines sit idle...as the cost then is "zero" to the tax payer.

 

Of course, the only reason they sit idle is either two reasons. 1) the entire site is still under construction (which means they are the commissioning phase of development), or 2) the turbine is under maintenance / repair.

 

Either of those options mean power isn't being supplied to the grid, therefore, tax payers aren't paying for the power.

Wind Energy is the cheapest form of renewable energy purchased by the tax payer (as show in the link above).

[Big Cliff]

Thanks Steve, I do appreciate you taking the time to educate me on this!

[Steve]

no problem.

 

Green energy isn't perfect. certainly not.

 

but there is so much false information floating around out there.....it can be tough to wade through the bias.

 

many folk are against green energy as it generates power without the use of highly paid operators....as such, you have very large unions, with lots of dollars, posting a lot of misinformation.

Edited April 2, 2016 by Steve

[davey buoy]

Thanks Steve,I was like Cliff in believing what a waste of money not running.Thanks again for explaining. I think most did not know this.

Edited April 2, 2016 by davey buoy

[Tom S]

I am not opposed to the wind turbines or solar panels, as Old Ironmaker says there are plenty of both out here. What does get me angry though is the subsidized rate that is payed for that hydro. I think it's great when governments support research and development projects, but to subsidize the market so that the technology becomes feasible is ridiculous. Shutting down existing generating stations that provide reliable and cheap electricity and forcing 'green' energy down our throats is garbage.

[John Bacon]

 

http://fit.powerauthority.on.ca/fit-program/fit-program-pricing/fit-price-schedule

 

I know there are TONS of misinformation out there...and I mean tons....A buck per KWH has never ever been paid ... not even FIT 1.0 when cost to install was 3.5 x's what it is now.

 

Anyway, wind is paying 12.8c a KW/h.

 

We pay 13.6c a KW/h for subsidized nuclear power.

 

So we purchase wind power cheaper than nuclear power.

 

Hope this helps clear up some of the misinformation out there.

 

Do you have a link to support the 13.6c KW/h for nuclear? I found a link (from 2013) stating that we are paying 5.2c for power from Bruce. Has it gone up that much in three years?

 

http://www.powerauthority.on.ca/nuclear/bruce-power-refurbishment-implementation-agreement/amendment-april-2013

 

April 2013

Bruce Power Contract Amendment April 2013

The Ontario Power Authority has completed a contract amendment to the Bruce Power Refurbishment Implementation Agreement (BPRIA). The amendment secures a cost-effective source of electricity to the end of the decade and is the first step in a commercial agreement to secure 6,300 MW at the Bruce site for the long-term.

Since 2005, Bruce Power has invested about $1 billion in its four Bruce B units and, over the next five years, plans to invest an additional $1.1 billion. These investments are extending the operational lives of the units from the original end of life dates between 2016 and 2019 to between 2019 and 2020. Bruce Power will continue to receive the floor price set out in the BPRIA, currently at 5.2 cents per kilowatt-hour, which is the lowest cost generation under contract with the OPA.

This amendment provides significant financial benefit to Ontario ratepayers by securing 15 percent of Ontario’s annual electricity supply from Bruce B, which is reliable, low cost and low emission baseload power to 2020, a time period when some Bruce and Darlington nuclear units are expected to be offline for refurbishing. The OPA continues to work with nuclear operators to develop a co-ordinated schedule for the 10 remaining refurbishments to secure the output at these two sites for the long-term.

[Steve]

no, that is the direct cost to purchase nuclear power.

 

however, the indirect cost includes the cost the government is contracted to purchase, due to minimum purchase requirements, which isn't actually used, but paid for.

 

to my knowledge the 5.2c price is a fixed price, based on a minimum purchase requirement, contracted under a power purchase agreement.

 

cheers,

[KLINKER]

They started paying wind turbines not to produce in Sept of 2013..........Oh yeah check the date on that first post.

[manitoubass2]

I got paid good to help build this farm?

 

Shes running like a champ

 

 

 

I made a football that day before the panels were live.

 

Good times playin in that muck??

 

[Old Ironmaker]

There is a third reason for the blades not turning, not enough wind. As far as the buck a KWH, yes it came from a group that fought the building of the wind farms here.

[John Bacon]

no, that is the direct cost to purchase nuclear power.

 

however, the indirect cost includes the cost the government is contracted to purchase, due to minimum purchase requirements, which isn't actually used, but paid for.

 

to my knowledge the 5.2c price is a fixed price, based on a minimum purchase requirement, contracted under a power purchase agreement.

 

cheers,

 

How much of the energy purchased from Bruce are they not using? If utilization is what is driving the price from 5.2 cents to 13.6; they would have to actually use less than 40% of what they are required to purchase. Are there other factors accounting for the difference? Do you have a source for the 13.6 cents figure that you posted?

 

An acquaintance of mine, who worked for Ontario Hydro, told me that nuclear one of the cheapest forms of electricity. All of the research that I have done seems to confirm this.

 

https://cna.ca/why-nuclear-energy/affordable/power-rates/

 

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/12/17/nuclear-power-is-clean-and-affordable

 

http://www.energybc.ca/profiles/nuclear/uselectricitycost.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Steve]

you can't get a public link, as the nuclear deal was a sweat heart deal that was done behind closed doors.

 

the cost figure was provided by the head of the IESO himself during a public info session in January of 2016.

 

as for old ironmaker, here's the link to the first pay schedule from Fit 1.0 (the first pay schedule, and the highest, as the cost to install was the highest at that time)

 

https://fit.powerauthority.on.ca/Storage/11126_FIT_Price_Schedule.pdf

 

You will see that wind power hasn't paid more than 0.20c since the beginning.

 

"A buck a KW" never existed ... but doesn't surprise me that a group against wind turbines spouted incorrect information.

Edited April 3, 2016 by Steve

[Steve]

They started paying wind turbines not to produce in Sept of 2013..........Oh yeah check the date on that first post.

 

They paid wind turbines NOT to produce?

 

The only thing remotely close to that, which may be what you are referring to is, a few energy developments, prior to be installed, had confirmation from the IESO that the T&D lines would be upgraded prior to the completion of development.

 

The IESO failed in their commitment, resulting in the T&D lines not being able to accept the power produced (at least not during peak production time).

 

As a result, a court case was won which forced the IESO to pay for the power that was being generated, that could not be accepted by the grid, because of IESO not getting the T&D lines upgraded.

 

I believe if anyone in this country made the capital investment, then found the government, through actions not done, could not accept the power which was promised to be purchased, (through the legal binding power purchase agreement), then you would be expected to be paid for the power produced.

 

But this needs to be clear. The wind developers are not being paid to "sit idle".....the true fact is wind developers want to be paid for what they are actually generating.

 

Hope this helps further clarify some of the information on this thread.

 

Cheers,

[Steve]

 

How much of the energy purchased from Bruce are they not using? If utilization is what is driving the price from 5.2 cents to 13.6; they would have to actually use less than 40% of what they are required to purchase. Are there other factors accounting for the difference? Do you have a source for the 13.6 cents figure that you posted?

 

An acquaintance of mine, who worked for Ontario Hydro, told me that nuclear one of the cheapest forms of electricity. All of the research that I have done seems to confirm this.

 

https://cna.ca/why-nuclear-energy/affordable/power-rates/

 

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/12/17/nuclear-power-is-clean-and-affordable

 

http://www.energybc.ca/profiles/nuclear/uselectricitycost.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your acquaintance is very correct, as is your research.

 

Nuclear Energy is the lowest cost to produce. However, the highest cost to build and maintain. Pure production though - yes, the cheapest to produce.

 

Nuclear Energy will always provide base load energy to the grid. My best friend, who is an operator at Bruce, is not the slightest bit concerned about wind and solar. But all the coal operators, and gas operators, see their jobs blowing away in the wind....and that is what is driving a lot of misinformation by the power unions.

[KLINKER]

Sept 2013 Global Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli says the system operator can now order wind producers not to generate power, and will pay them — just as it pays Bruce nuclear — not to produce electricity when it’s not needed.

He says they are paid at a reduced rate that will save the province $200 million a year just on the wind turbines.

 

They might have stopped because I thought there was something in the news recently in the last week or two about starting to pay turbines not to produce. The idea being better to pay the producers not to produce than having to pay someone to take the power or selling cheaper than production cost.

 

Comparing wind turbines to the the Bruce plant deal is comparing one bad idea to another.