Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Ontario's Growing Pains: Will the Wind and Solar Industries Scale-up in Time?

Do you like this opinion & commentary?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 

The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.

4 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 4
August 11, 2010
Ms. Baker, obviously you forgot about the complete halt in sales for ground mount systems in the wake of OPA"s pending rate cut.
I would like to hear Chantal Ramsey's comment's on that.
Yours truly
John Hubman
President
H-Y Manufacturing Ltd.
Solar equipment manufacturer
Comment
2 of 4
August 11, 2010
Canada's record for the production of greenhouse gases is disgraceful, and unfortunately Ontario's FIT program will make it even worse. Such incentive programs make sense in other countries that depend on coal but in Canada we make very little use of coal for either heating or electricity production. Our GHG is produced by heating and transportation energy needs, both of which depend mainly on fossil fuels. There are affordable solutions for those major GHG emitters but our governments and NGO's have instead concentrated on electricity production, a choice that is absurd in a country that uses GHG-free electric power (mostly hydro). The FIT program redirects both public and private funds away from productive solutions and towards a solution that will primarily benefit the fossil fuel industry. If we use sporadic sources of energy for producing electricity then we will need to match their outputs with a source that can rapidly respond to the supply fluctuations, which means an expansion of the fossil fuel-fired power generation.

There are better solutions available (see Sustainability-Journal.ca) that have a much larger supply capacity than wind and solar PV, that provide the energy at the times when we need it, that are much less expensive, and that do not produce any GHG's, either directly or indirectly.
Comment
3 of 4
August 12, 2010
To: Mr. RonTomie
let me remind you of the subsidies that were in place for fossil fuels in 70's and 80's. Nearly $1.B were dished out for offshore exploration in the Atlantic under the PIP grants and in Alberta, billions in "incentives" were put on the table to develop the Tar Sands and Beufort Sea exploration. Yes we are addicted to oil but until an alternitive is in place, our economy and lifestyle will depend on it. The money being spent in Ont. pales compared to the money milked by oil companies all in the name of energy security. if this was coupled with a sound effert at conservation it would be a good program-and that is the key-conservation.
Comment
4 of 4
August 13, 2010
To Angus
The net result of the FIT program is that it subsidizes the coal and natural gas industries. If you add a fluctuating supply source to the power grid then you have to also add another source that maintains the grid supply when the fluctuating supply is not operating at its maximum output. Since wind turbines and solar PV provide only a very small average output compared to their rated capacities the result is that the backup source will actually provide most of the energy. At present, only fossil fuel sources like coal, oil and natural gas are suitable for that backup role (with some trivial exceptions). For example, if Ontario achieves its apparent intent to provide 8% of its power via such sources then it will need to provide about 50% of the remaining requirement with fossil fuels, which would be a giant step backwards in the effort to reduce GHG. (Note that Canadian power generation is very different from that of most other countries)

The Ontario government has promised to switch from using coal for peaking power generation to using natural gas instead. Unfortunately that is happening at a time when the supply of natural gas is rapidly switching to shale gas which is arguably an even worse GHG problem than coal because of the GHG lost in the extraction process.

Renewable energy sources like AE can deal with a very large part of both our winter and summer peak energy demands but such productive solutions are being ignored. Instead, the FIT program is attracting large private investments, is forcibly adding to the bills of power customers, and is costing the power suppliers a lot of money, all of which ends up being another subsidy for the fossil fuel industry.
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

adrienne baker

View adrienne baker's Profile
About: Adrienne is a director at Canadian Clean Energy Conferences. With degrees from McGill and Concordia, Adrienne Baker spent seven years in financial journalism re... more »

Advertise With Us

Yingli Green Energy Americas, Inc. Schneider Electric Geothermal Resources Council REC Solar AltEnergyStocks Unirac, Inc. American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE)
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters