Ontario Revises Proposed Feed-in Tariffs

Feed-in tariffs are a bad idea. Distributed renewable energy is most valuable as an energy offset technology, meaning it should be sized and used to offset the amount of grid energy consumed by homes & businesses, nothing more. With this type of use, the value of renewable energy produced equals the expensive retail rate of energy replaced, which makes distributed renewables very economical. This grid energy offset is the strong-point of distirubted renewable energy. Using feed-in tariffs encourages over-production from homes & businesses. This is a mistake. Distributed renewables are siginficantly less efficient and less cost-effective than renewable energy power plants that are sited in ideal conditions and built with more efficient technologies. We need to use our big power plants to make cheaper wholesale energy that can be bought & sold on the grid, and restrict distributed renewables to offset grid consumption-nothing more. Feed-in tariffs take us in the wrong direction.

I disagree with anonymous. Feed-in tariffs are intended to stimulate the expansion of renewables and of distributed generation, to the benefit of the consumer-producers and the utilities (who are-- or will soon be-- scrambling to keep up with new RPS requirements). Perhaps feed-ins will not be the best arrangement once we have a large proportion of distributed generation and renewables online, but that's a concern for the future. In the meantime, the centralized power production mentality of the past must be seen for the dinosaur it is. Since we don't have smart grid yet deployed, I don't see how centralized renewable generation is any more efficient than distributed, given the tremendous losses incurred during distribution and transmission in the present grid. There would be the possible advantage of the generation itself being more efficient, given that the average coal-burning power plant in the U.S. is about 34% efficient now; but distributed generation provides better energy security and the potential for energy independence (with power storage systems) that centralized production can never provide.

I say Go, Gainesville (and Canada)! Let's promote distributed generation so that we can reduce our dependence on the present inefficient, centralized power systems that waste more energy than they generate.

I think every house or business should have its own power source. Distributed energy is the only way to go. The large utilities should change their business model to function as distributed power providers and maintainers of distributed power, not centralized generators of power. Feed-in tariffs are an excellent way for communities to take responsibility for their own power generation. Ontario's revisions are valid and worthy.

I totally disagree with anonymous, who is I suspect a paid Utility lobbyist that wants to maintain the status quo. Distributed power is the way to go. Micro generation at the rooftop level is 10 x more economical than coal fired power energy. It is 20x more economical than nuclear power. This information is qualified/verified by the Rocky Mt. Institute

I also totally disagree with anonymous. Because of brainwashed people like him we are slaves to the utilities for life. Feed in tariff is a well proven model all over Europe and it brings on line more Renewable Energy than anything else...

I also disagree with anonymous.

As long as the proportion of erratic but local renewable distributed generation is small (during initial proliferation), those that are feeding in will be feeding other local sinks that previously consumed energy from centralised resources. This supply will have lower grid losses and less expensive infrastructure maintenance requirements, so it is only fair that they are paid more for it.

On this basis, it is also right that it should be applied to small cogen schemes, as on-site electrical and thermal loads do not coincide, but there may be an electrical load locally that can take surplus power and displace a less efficient source.

As the proportion of distributed energy increases, a more intelligent scheme of supply/demand sliding tarrifs and feed-in power control will be required, but for the moment, the stimulation the tarrifs provides is constructive.

Apparently, my comment didn't get much support here. I do appreciate the constructive comments (for those of you who know how to be constructive). Great discussion for the industry. Just to clarify, I have no connections to any industry and I believe strongly in both centralized and distributed renewable power generation. I am also an engineer who believes that the best way for the renewable energy industry to succeed long-term is by making policies based on technological & economic efficiency, not ideology. I love the idea of every home & business making all of their own power from distributed renewable energy. I just don't think they should to go beyond that and make excess power that is sold back to the grid. The best way to stimulate the growth of renewables is what we're doing now – rebates & tax incentives. Utilities will get their RPS credits by offering rebates to consumers, and they avoid paying extra for excess production generated by every John Doe with an over-sized system on his house – costs that will be passed on to consumers. We need to focus on putting the best technologies in the right locations. This means wind turbines in the midwest & coastlines, solar in the southwest, etc. Have you ever looked at a solar resource map of Germany? Its terrible. They are subsidizing inefficient use of the technology with their policies. Use of solar pv in places like Seattle (like the German FIT system promotes) is a bad idea. Lets keep increasing the financial incentives for all renewables, and let the engineers and financial guys decide how best to locate and size the systems.

anonymous makes some interesting points except a few fundamental truths make feed in tarrifs not a not ideology but rational incentive to help expediate humanity out of this dire situation we have put our selves into

1 By increasing consumer demand we will get products based on technological & economic efficiency (hoprfully that will encourage intelligent policy)
2 It would be nice if every home and business could produce there own power but at present that is something a twenty floor apartment building would have a hard time doing with both heating and cooling. That would make it a nice guesture for a neighbour to throw on an extra pannel or two for the hood thereby reducing long distance transmission and exploiting the vast potential of our cities roof tops. (why dont you want your neighbour to make a buck?)
3 Large solar generating plants in the desert are ugly and ruin the desert environment (small is beautiful)
4 I don't want a rebate for my power plant I want income so I can go to the bank and get a loan for my pannels.
5 Some time soon consumers (self included) will have to fork over some doe to ensure our survival. Apparently there is no such thing as a free lunch
6 There is wind and sun every where, lets make technologies inexpensive and efficient that will work everywhere.
7 Germany has effectively reduced its carbon foot print and dependance on importing oil. How is the rest of the planet doing?
8 Solar works in Germany and Seatle
9 Lets keep increasing all benificial incentives for all renewables. FIT included. The Engineers will help us out but keep an eye on the financial guys. They've been screwing up from E (enron) to W (wall street). That only leaves them with A,B,C,D,X,Y and Z