John Spears story in The Toronto Star accompanied the press release from the government.
Cheap abundant supply allows discounts to large industry at the same time as expensive intermittent supply is forced on unwelcoming communities at the expense of unwitted ratepayers.
Ontario offers lower hydro rates to industry for job creation - thestar.com:
Bentley said the low-cost power for businesses won’t cost other power users anything.The entire article can be read at thestar.com - where comments are currently open
That’s because the power used for the program is surplus power that otherwise would have been exported, he said.
Ontario is sometimes forced to offer power to neighbouring states and provinces at a steep discount – and occasionally even pays them to take Ontario’s surplus.
“We’re not selling it at a loss, we are exporting our extra,” Bentley said. “We have sufficient generation for families and businesses of Ontario, the demand following the world-wide recession left us with extra, and we’re putting that extra to work.”
Bentley said Ontario can produce about 150,000,000 megawatt hours of electricity a year, but uses only 140,000,000.
The province could produce much more than 150TWh each year - it does produce 150TWh each year. Has since 2008, when it produced almost 160TWh.
ReplyDeleteI've attached an image of the provincial electricity planning platform - we are all limited in time, but this planning is something that you might consider doing during a blackout.
A visual to demonstrate the expected relationship between market pricing, demand, and production, in the electricity system
ReplyDeleteSo I presume Samsung would qualify for the cheap pricing. They would get the 20 year contracts to sell us wind and solar at inflated prices and get cheap hydro. I guess McGuinty/Bentley has found a way to give them a bigger adder? Neat trick eh?
ReplyDeleteAs I understand it, Parker, wind projects get their electricity for free, compliments of an agreement between Ontario and CANWea. I'm don't know if it is even metered. If it was then we might be able find out how much they use and see how big a percentage it is of what they produce.
ReplyDeleteWayne this story from the UK back last winter during their cold snap produced the exact result you suggested: Go here: http://toryaardvark.com/2010/12/29/uk-wind-turbines-consume-more-enerygy-than-they-produce/ and from the BBC here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/learningzone/clips/domestic-wind-turbines-may-use-more-power-than-they-generate/5960.html
ReplyDeleteWhen a Government places the interests of an Industry over the interests of their citizens it's called a "Tyranny"!
ReplyDeleteI finally got a measurement of consumption, from a U Minn test project involving a Vestas V82 1.65 mw turbine, which is widely-used. Something on the order of 50 kw! The details are posted at http://windfarmrealities.org/?p=1594. My main question: does anyone know if that turbine's generator uses an electromagnet or a rare-earth permanent magnet?
ReplyDeleteBeyond my full comprehension Wayne, but from the product brouchure to a comment thread at the Oil Drum, I think this makes sense:
ReplyDelete"...Vestas, the largest producer, uses asynchronous double fed induction generators that use no permanent magnets. It is likely that there will be a continued swing to permanent magnets while the cost advantage (largely down to eliminating the gear box) exists, but there will be a swing back to asynchronous generators if the costs of rare earth elements rises too far." - http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6700
If I understand Wayne's link correctly, the 50kW-80kW (depending on weather) the V82 unit is consuming would equate to about 12% of what the turbine produces in a year.
ReplyDeleteI think they get that power from us for free.
At the FIT rate most turbines now have, that would be $71000 a year.