Ontario Slashes FiT for Solar, Wind

Oil supporters are right if we take a look at the profit of the present time and ignore people and our planet in the future. With other words if we care only our pockets- what bankers, businessmen and politicians do, I will support the fossil fuel economy.

But if we are not selfish and we think seriously at our coming generations we must promote green energy (please do not include here nuclear energy) at any cost alongside with other sustainable initiatives related transportation, housing, water and food.

We are into the position to see what threatening civilization we created in the last century and now we can still reduce- too late for total elimination, the consequences of this global threat. The problem is that we are so corrupted and selfish so when a scientist unveils the truth we become dull, sarcastic and total skeptics.

Since 1970 I watched over tens of climate change reports, studies and research papers from prestigious academic societies alarming about the destructive impact of global economy upon the echo systems of our planets. I watched over tens of international agreements, protocols, conferences related the reduction of GHG. After 50 years the situation is worse. I myself I am very skeptical regarding a possible mitigation of the effects of global warming.

I am convinced the hell is on the corner. Let it come ASAP. It is the way to protect future generations and to punish all responsible agents who created it.

Unless you are willing to go without electricity when there is no wind, you have to keep the nuclear plants, or replace them with coal, oil, or natural gas.

Make the case: dieing from lung disease is more fun than dieing from radiation poisoning.

'worst out first'? In my experience, 'the low hanging fruit' method is procrastination in disguise.

We all use electricity - our priority should be what energy production does to our quality of life and our environment first and foremost - not how cheaply we can get it. I'd rather live longer. Too much discussion about the cost of renewables; virtually nothing about the cost of human life. I'm guessing that the cost of human life and valuation of quality of life will not show up as a line items in a CBA for a power plant anytime soon.
The EIA puts the cost of wind power at 0.097 $/kWh, clean coal at 0.136, clean natural gas at $0.0893 and nuclear at 0.113 (average for new capacity) - the problem is 'conventional' coal at 0.095 and natural gas at 0.066. I think we can guess that clean coal and clean natural gas aren't going to happen. The incumbents, NIMBYs and Ludites will drag down wind and solar. Like the con in Fargo, we're going to put our friends through a wood chipper for 'a little bit of money'.

Test

No one is doing either. Worst out first. Others will, worst case die a natural death, but not kill us, hopefully in the meantime.

Things are happening although sometimes it does not seem so - example - in 2011 renewables (wind and solar) put 27GW into operation vs ZERO for nuclear. so we are moving, much slower than I and perhaps you would want - but moving. All we need is REAL leaders in Washington - but that is another conversation.

peterlynch - my point is that death is nothing to be sneered at and that one should not be oblivious to actual deaths happening every day. That in no way diminishes the attendant risk for nuclear but certainly demonstrates the attendant risks of fossil fuels which seems to be being ignored. It is just not a good survival strategy to focus only on the guy with the RPG to the exclusion of the guy with the knife.
In any case, your numbers are off: failure at a nuclear plant may kill millions (hopefully that's an isolated event) while normal operation of dirty coal plants (no need to wait for an accident) will over 40 years kill just as many - guaranteed.

GeraldR - what is your point ? Millions of potential deaths is far worse than thousands - ?? Plus the region is worthless for decades or more.

If Indian Point in NY were to have a melt down - they just discovered another earthquake fault a few years ago that makes the construction specs under designed for two faults that are now there.

If Indian point has a melt down you could lose up to 20 million people, make Manhattan a waste land, shut down the world's financial system and throw the world into a decades long depression.

There is no other energy system that has this RISK, others are indeed bad, but not in this league.

Once again I repeat - AN unacceptable, irrational, totally avoidable, not even capable of financing RISK...

@peterlynch: I agree that nuclear has a huge negative potential. I was merely observing that coal power eliminates approximately 8000 human life years per year in Ontario ... that's sort of serious for the unlucky 1600 or so that cease breathing. And I'm a little put out by what acid rain has done to the fishing off my dock. I don't know where all the coal ash gets dumped but it would be good to know. Ontario is famous for the call of the loon, something that mercury laden acidic emissions are steadily downsizing.

GeraldR - lets stick to the points

1. Only nuclear plants, among the energy mix, have the potential
to kill millions and make regions uninhabitable for centuries. This is NOT a perceived risk it is an TOTALLY unacceptable risk UNLESS you personally have a design that is exempt from acts of God.
2. The industry safety record, considering the downside of an accident is abysmal
3. No equity investor HAS or ever will invest in one because they are simply NOT economical.

the cost for fit are less than the cost for the damages and additional it creates long term growth if it created like the ontario fit!

interesting how this discussion rolls from ontario and their idea of cutting their fit to germanys fit and the consumption of energy and the prices.
But some of you just see their point (Anti-Wind Anti Solar FIT's)
and take some economical arguments without the economical benefit of wind and solar fit's in the past. Just look how german wind manufacturers are successful all over the world and bring a lot of jobs and income back to the region where they are active. the same was with the solar industry until the asian companies dumps the prices and kill the german solar industry (4 big companies are going into insolvency in the last year). its not random that their is a anti-dumping solar case in the US because of the chinese manufacteres to secure the us solar industry. this is one of the main problems of fit in germany because no company have an advantage to produce in germany (totally different to the fit in canada, because their you have to produce 50% in canada to get subsidize).

additional in this discussion thread some people forget that peak-oil is already relevance and the prices wont stop to get up because their will be no more oil for all the upcoming bric-states. they all want to drive cars get a refrigiator and will use more and more the energy who has driven our western economy with a low cost model. i cant understand why so many people think oil should be cheaper or is cheap because oil is the ressource who was responsible for the growth of everything.
this is the reason why renewable energy ressoruces like wind, solar, biomass and geothermic is so important for the wealth of our world. oil will be vanish in 40-60 years and the ressources who the companies using espically in canada with one of the most negative producing activities, the oil sands mining, makes everything worser for the enviroment and in the long way for the economy because the damage have to be paid by your childrens!

Wind energy is not a replacement for fossil fuel. It's an add-on. The addition of wind energy into our system of power generation only serves to decrease the efficiency of our fossil fuel power plants to the point where little or no fuel is saved.

The most we can expect to gain from wind is the replacement of coal for natural gas. While that may result in a less polluting system, the cost will skyrocket and the coal will be shipped to China, India, and elsewhere, where it will be burned without scrubbers increasing pollution worldwide.

The Chinese will use our cheap coal to make wind turbines and solar panels, using "slave" labor. These will be exported to us so we can satisfy the artificial market created by the many mandates for renewable energy.

China wins. We lose!

At this stage of development, wind energy is not worth the annoyance of anyone who is forced to live within a mile and a quarter of a noisy wind turbine.

Peterlynch
Nuclear plants seem presently not to be very bankable. This is typically related to some mix of perceived economic potential and perceived risk. This can't be entirely rational (as much as we'd like to see rationality in financial practice) as, until recently, Frankenfunds and sub-prime mortgages were very bankable.
But we should be careful not to confuse real and apparent risk. In terms of actual risk, i.e. practice that has resulted in real harm, the impact of coal fired power has been provably greater, Three Mile Island notwithstanding. Nuclear waste with no apparent home is definitely concerning, particularly what remains as waste in temporary storage at decommisioned facilities; however, at least a portion of the liability is funded and long term solutions are being sought. The same can't be said for many massive fly ash dumps that also have no truly permanent home. Again, these wastes have done much more actual harm than than the homeless nuclear waste. I you consider that the dog that bit you is more dangerous than the one that hasn't, the current perceptions of relative risk is flawed. Locally, we still have issues with coal tar and other wastes associated with gas production, primarily for lighting, preceding electrification. This very much exposes the issue: no-one remembers how much there is or where it is and there is no-one who owns up to or owns the problem in existance. In the end, John Q Taxpayer ends up paying millions for energy consumed as much as 100 years ago. Unfortunately for nuclear, a mound of nuclear waste has a very high perceived risk relative to mountains of other toxic waste. An interesting factoid is that some ash dumps are more radioactive than masses of material from decomissioned nukes.
Anyway, you are also conflating another issue: operating equipment well beyond its design life is generally high risk. This is just as true for an obsolete hydro dam or thermal plant i.e. not specific to nukes.

GeraldR

All good points - thanks.

But as banker I know they cannot be financed without 100% Gov guarantee. But more so - the NRC is being paid off by the industry on these 20 year extensions. They were built to work fo 40 and now they want to go to 60 and run hotter ?? 63 applications to date ALL of them approved - hmmmmm

Beyond any on that the RISK/REWARD is off the charts - the Vermont Yankee Plant is a wreak, it had its extension approved 5 days after the Japan disaster at the same time the cooling tower literally fell down !!!!!!!

That plan goes and New England is a dead zone for 300+ years - the cost of that is --- Trillions and it would collapse the US and world economy...HUGE risk for an old, accident prone plant that luckily lasted the 40 years - 60 is asking for it....INSANE.

"The plant has been shut down for two months, the longest in San Onofre's history, after a tube leak in one of the plant's steam generators released a small amount of radioactive steam. Since then, unusual wear has been found on hundreds of tubes that carry radioactive water. Neither regulators nor Edison have said when they believe the plant will reopen. San Onofre is a major supplier of power for Southern California, producing about 2,200 megawatts of power, or enough electricity to serve 1.4 million households. It is Southern California's only nuclear power plant."
Perhaps prof Westgard would care to elucidate on capacity factor here?

"

Actually, the official nuclear capacity factor in 2011 was 89.0%. But this is a fictive number. First, one of the putative 104 reactors was omitted from the data (perhaps a capacity factor of 0% had something to do with it). The official capacity factor is obtained by dividing production by the summer power rating of the plants which is a theoretically reduced power rating to account for various operational issues; however, summer does not go on for 12 months of the year (apparently, not obvious enough though). On average this number represents only 94.8% of the nameplate capacity. Normally, capacity factors are actual over nominal - in this case, the capacity factor without slight of hand is 84.4%. In spite of the fact that 18 reactors had an official capacity factor of less than 80%, one can arrive at 89.0% if some reactors are allowed to exceed 100% CF. Notable underachievers: Crystal River 3: 0%, Fort Calhoun: 27.8% and Columbia River 2: 50%.
If we add the 28 reactors that are licenced but have been taken down for various cost or technical reasons, the actual capacity factor computed as energy produced over total nameplate capacity built (but not beyond design lifetime) we get a capacity factor of ~65%. A duff nuclear reactor is a rather large thing to sweep under the carpet since (wait for it) it is built from many tons of concrete and steel.

One way to denigrate renewables is to point out how little of the total energy needed is produced by renewables -- like that's the problem. US nukes provide only 9% of total generation.

Personally, I'm not against nukes, at least as long as several of the alternatives are much worse or much more worse. But, it doesn't hurt to use the data as honestly as possible. I also don't entirely buy overnight cost arguments in any case. At the microscopic level, I (like most people I'm assuming) spend money to make my personal environment better even if the cost-benefit is dubious and don't see the harm in scaling this up.

Rolf - Read what GeraldR said - you are not seeing reality.

Nuclear plans have a miserable record and if NOTHING ELSE were true, which is NOT the case the risk return is totally unacceptable.....trust me you are clueless - if they cannot be financed without 100% government money and no company will insure them and and none have been built in 30 years and one accident almost destroyed Japan - Take a hint..

Their time has past and in fact NEVER was.....

Nonsense. You need to take one of my classes. I'll even pay your tuition. Capacity factor in nuclear is over 90%. Wind is a joke at 27%.

As usual, rolf uses the Bono style heavily tinted rose colored glasses. In actuality, the US has many more than 104 reactors; however, only 104, give or take a few, are considered serviceable and of those only a portion are dispatchable at any given time. Of the many reactors not in service, several operated for less than 5 years. Of the various large nuclear facilities not in service there are 18 that are decomissioned to the extent that they no longer operate but not to the extent that they no longer exist with the ground they stand on available for reuse. Based on the costs associated with the small number of reactors actually fully decomissioned, the currently available pool of funds is perhaps 60% of what is needed. Cheap and dependable in the present tense, like a pit bull rescue dog.

Good luck with that Rolf

Nuclear plants are NOT safe, their track record is incredibly poor,on average they their cost overruns average 300% and we (investment bankers ) will not fund on without a 100% federal guarantee. Terrible numbers. Name ONE of the 104 what was NOT built with government money but with private equity - answer ZERO...

None. those nuclear plants are gold mines for the utilities that own them. They also contribute to low rates for customers. We have 104 reactors which operate safely and economically. We would be in trouble without them

Interesting

So no concern for safety and risk of Nuclear or the "real cost" of the plants ?

Excel Energy is testing one of those giant $5 million sodium sulfur batteries to back up a wind farm in southern MN. the battery is the size of a couple 18 wheelers. The nearby Prairie Island nuclear plant can charge that battery from zero to full in 18 seconds. PI nuclear produces upwards of 9 billion kwh/year. And it does it night and day, rain or shine, wind or calm. It comes down to e=mc2. And c2 is a very big number.
Rolf

rolf

Is Nuclear puny too ??

Subsidies to oil and gas are tax credits and depreciation deductions that are available to all businesses. Oil and gas is a very large profitable business, so those tax breaks are substantial.
Wind and solar farms are money losers, so tax breaks don't do much. They need and get direct cash payments and "must take" laws that require utilities to buy their output at above market rates(Cape Wind). In addition there are payments per kwh produced. As the solar and wind industry concede, take those away and they die. We do need to subsidize renewables, but let's not kid ourselves. They are still intermittent and puny - pineapples in Alaska.

Some more facts on subsidies 'manufactured' by the EIA:
On a per barrel of energy equivalent, here are 2011 federal subsidies for each energy fuel.
Oil and gas - $0.28 cents; hydro - $0.52; nuclear - $1.79; biofuels - $20.37; Wind - $32.59; Solar - $63.00.
One reason for the huge difference is again the scale issue. renewables are inefficient and don't produce much usable power.

rolf - it is truly amazing how you manufacture "facts". If solar is good for the LONG term when do we start to get serious?

If you want to KNOW THE TRUTH it is very very simple and it works EVERY single time - FOLLOW THE MONEY. If someone is getting paid there is a very good possibility that they are biased toward the one who is paying them.

BTW before I go further - I am a republican, an investment banker and I think ALL of Washington is broken, but I am also rational,have an open mind and think it is important to plan ahead.

Regarding following the money - just look and follow and see where you think it leads.


Big Oil Makes Record Profits, Then Doles Out Millions In Campaign Contributions To Republicans, Who Then Vote To Protect Big Oil Handouts

• The big five oil companies—BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell—combined made a record-high $137 billion in profits in 2011. Yet the swear that they NEED the $4 Billion in Federal Subsidies....huh ?

• Meanwhile, the oil and gas industry has already contributed over $20 million in federal campaign contributions this election cycle, with 88 percent of all Big Oil contributions going to Republicans.

• Last year the Senate failed to end billions of dollars in oil tax breaks by a vote of 52-48, with the Big Oil backers receiving $21 million in career oil contributions compared to the $5.4 million received by those who voted to end these Big Oil handouts.

• Since 2006 Senate Republicans have taken $13,818,359 from the oil and gas industry compared to the $3,332,251 received by Democrats.

• Since 2006 the Senate has received $17,240,960 in Big Oil money and $30,116,264 in career contributions.

So who is getting paid and for what? Follow the Money it ALWAYS leads back to the truth.

Solar has some long term potential. But a wind turbine is 150 tons of concrete, steel, human labor, and some rare earths. All of those are on price increase trends. And don't live within a mile of those turbines. The low frequency sound will drive you up the wall those sounds penetrate. I was very pleased to help kill the Goodhue County MN fiasco.

There are reasons why wind and solar combined are about one quad of the 100 quads of energy the US consumes each year. It's called scale. Industrial wind is rate payer and taxpayer funded scam. It rivals corn ethanol.

The "fact" regarding subsidies comes in two parts. When all direct/indirect subsidies to all generation sources are stopped, AND, all external costs are included, then we have an energy world where the cheapest and most socially beneficial will be developed. Renewables win hands down.
Wind alone was never intended to be the sole source, and works quite well with what's already built, and will be built as we move to a smarter grid.
no need to bring Godwin into the discussion, either.

The moment direct subsidies stop, the renewable business goes as quiet as those turbine blades on a sultry summer day when all ACs run and there isn't a "breath of air". Germany will get by with big imports of French nuclear power, available night and day, rain or shine, wind or calm.
And my Norwegian extended family suffered a good deal in world war II under the occupation.
Herr Westgard

Actually, Herr Westgard, the price of electricity for all consumers in Deutschland is now lower than if the investment in FIT technologies hadn't been made. Same in Denmark. This is because renewables, particularly wind, back off the most expensive plants at the margin.
Jurgen Grossmann has to make pineapple statements, because he's trying to protect RWE's investments in coal and nuclear, including unbelievably, new coal plants. But he's also lobbying for higher FITs and interconnection security for offshore wind at the same time.
The simple economic truth about energy comparisons is that until all external costs are included in cost of energy analysis, there are no real facts. And when they are included, renewables wins hands down. Not to mention real export job creation.

Please verify your facts. The Ontario government has only just completed their 2 year review of the FIT program. This report is only their recommendations to the Ontario Power Authority. The rates are not official yet.

It's sad that when it comes to renewable energy, so many people buy into big oil propaganda.
There is not a more evil, dishonest, unethical industry on this planet, except maybe Monsanto.

Big oil and gas produce two products prolifically, energy and propaganda. They would make Josef Goebbels blush.

Rolf .. half is not zero. Seems like a basic math fact. And were talking aout half as much CO2 as burning pure carbon ... not building a hydro dam or a nuke or a wind farm or a geothermal plant or a solar farm or conservation. If you're not currently burning coal, switching to NG is producing more CO2 not less. Clean NG is a myth ... what they don't like to mention is the other pollutants that come with it: okay less mercury and sulphur is good but some of the other stuff not so much. Some NG plants have higher particle emissions than some coal plants, although the average is lower. Also emissions of NOx, which are both GHG and pollutant, are only reduced by 30% per MWh compared to coal so the 50% GHG reduction argument is actually incorrect. When you produce and use a lot of NG you lose a lot too and CH4 is a much more serious GHG than CO2. But the burning question (excuse the pun) is why you would consider burning coal as the benchmark? This is a 'stabbing is better than shooting' argument.

Note: the US fed spins this to 50% CO2 reduction by ignoring other GHG emissions and comparing state of the art NG to legacy coal. The actuals on operating NG and coal plants in the US shows NG only reducing CO2 by 32%.

To give a brief lesson, when you burn a hydrocarbon, the liquid or solid is converted to gases. The C acquires O and becomes CO2. The H joins O and becomes water vapor. CH4 will produce about half the CO2 per BTU than coal. Nuclear is actually the only long term low emission replacement for coal, unless you have lots of hydro around. Wind and solar are nuisance supplements.
Solar is a small fraction of 1% of our electric energy and will struggle to exceed the low single digits.

Rolf has yet to explain why Germany has the worst economy in Europe and that this is entirely due to its FiT policy. I won't hold my breath. "I know actual facts are a problem for some of you." - that's rich.

"To avoid each ton of CO2 emissions, one can spend $7 on insulating the roof of an old building, invest $28 in a new gas-fired power plant or put about $700 into a new solar energy system." -- it's deceptive to compare capex to total cost of energy. It's also deceptive to assign no cost to environmental damage other than CO2 emissions when this isn't even the most damaging effect. Insulating a roof is smart but neither here nor there unless one uses electric heat nor is it particularly relevant in Ontario where building codes mandate serious amounts of insulation and the primary space heating source is already natural gas. Please explain, how does a gas fired power plant produce less CO2 than any of the alternatives, except coal and oil. Of course the underlying premise is that you would otherwise be producing most of your electricity by burning coal and oil. Fortunately, that does not apply to Ontario (recall that that was the main topic) - since only 18% is currently produced from coal and oil with a plan to replace this over time, primarily with renewable energy and nuclear power. You might also note that whatever the joy of natural gas power plants, Ontario has been forced to cancel some new plants due to public pressure. No doubt about it: burning natural gas produces CO2. Fact check ... no, actually it does.

Accelerated depreciation would be a better way to encourage alternative energy.

@Anonymous comment 6:

People like you only show interest in the poor if it suits you. Why are you not protesting in favour of strict emission regulations for conventional power plants?

The hidden costs of conventional power plants and nuclear power plants are in the end paid for by the tax-payer and the health-insurance rate-payer. This drives up the effective salary costs. In the long run this costs more jobs than the temporary support for renewables. The poor are effectively t subsidising the filthy rich (like the Koch bros), by means of higher taxes, higher health insurance rates, their health and with the future of their children.

By the way: In Germany you don't need to be rich to build a PV system. You do not even have to own a roof. A group of citizens can come together and build a system on the roof of a public building.

Rolf: as I explained to your before: Costs don't drop just by time passing, or by some break-through invention straight from the lab. They come mainly from learning by doing and upscaling. This is only possible if you create a market. FiT's have been very successful in achieving this goal. The costs of PV have dropped enormously the last fifteen years. At many places grid-parity at end-consumer level is achieved. This has always been the main goal of the German renewable energy law. The national economic benefits are more like a nice side-effect. It may be difficult to understand, but there are countries where people have ideals and are not entirely motivated by (national) self-interest.

But since you seem are not motivated by bettering the world some economic argument: the larger part of the total expenditures on PV systems still remains in Germany: planning, installation, inverters, support materials are all done or made by Germans. Furthermore, the Chinese factories are build by German companies.

"slashes" - You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. - Inigo Montoya

The "most studies show.." of Rolf in comment 2 is fiction itself. There has been one debunked spanish study that has been echoed around in reports by so-called "think"-tanks (actually lobby groups for vested interests). This way it looks that there are many studies that find the same results, it actually is just one study that has been copied and pasted many times.

One purpose of the FIT program was to make Germany the leader in solar panel manufacturing. Chancellor Merkel had consistently touted the environmental sector's "opportunities for exports, development, technology and jobs." In 2004, Germany held a 69 percent share of the global solar panel business. By 2011, it had declined to 20 percent as low cost panels from China and others entered the market.
Another purpose was to meet Germany's obligation to reduce green house gas emissions. Because of the poor electricity yield, solar energy production also saves little in the way of harmful carbon dioxide emissions, especially compared to other possible subsidization programs. To avoid each ton of CO2 emissions, one can spend $7 on insulating the roof of an old building, invest $28 in a new gas-fired power plant or put about $700 into a new solar energy system.
Jurgen Grossmann, the CEO of Germany's energy giant RWE, summed up the problem last week. He said, "The subsidization of solar energy in Germany was as useful as growing pineapples in Alaska."
Solar isn't a fraud; it just isn't very effective. Long term it has potential, but today it is an expensive joke. I know actual facts are a problem for some of you. IMO the $2 billion Ivanpah solar project in Nevada is the ultimate boondoggle; even worse than Cape Wind.
Rolf

Anonymous, rolf should hit himself on the head. Last time I was in Germany, I saw no swarms of Chinese doing installations on German palaces as he suggests. The reality was far different. Next, here's rolf to explain that Germany has the worst economy in Europe and its all down to accelerated closing of nukes and the solar farms of German princes when they still have hundreds of years of coal available.

Pity California - with the economy of a third world country lumbering under the cost of renewable energy ... not! Recent auctions saw renewables competing with and even beating non-renewables on an energy cost basis. With a percapita GDP ranked 10th overall and an energy productivity (GDP/kWh) ranked 3rd overall, one can hardly claim any negative impact for energy rates. Truth be told, high rates are very much a construct of constrained supply, lack of local generation and market manipulation combined with bottlenecks in the NG distribution system which constrains the ability of NG peakers to meet on-peak demand. California's efforts to free up local generation is not only laudable but ultimately a cost benefit.

The negative argument is for energy efficiency loser states which have less than 1/4 the energy productivity of California with electricity rates that are not dramatically less i.e. energy costs are a much higher percentage of the cost of doing business. A shot at these coal fired muckers would be much more on target.

One thing that stands out both across states and across power management regions is that the renewable power seekers are doing much better economically than the antitheses.

rfreeh got it right. FiTs are a mechanism to jump start a needed technology by accelerating demand so that economy of scale can do its thing to reduce the cost and increase the performance of a technology. As that strategy succeeds, a digression is in order. That is how it is supposed to work. Digression is an indicator of success not failure. Note, this is not even the first such digression in Ontario. When 10 KW ground mount tracker systems became commoditized due to the large appetite for such systems among farmers, the FiT for these installations was reduced in response to the cost efficiencies resulting from economy of scale.
If anyone wants to fuss about high electricity bills in Ontario, they should look at the component that pays down the 'stranded' nuclear power debt which adds ~10% to the bill. After that, the harmonized sales tax kicked in, making electricty a still more lucrative government revenue stream.

Rolf, you have hit the nail on the head, high energy costs mean less jobs. Solar and wind are a tax on the poor and middle class. You need to look no further than California, high energy costs due to government mandated green energy have driven business out of the state and now California has the one of the highest unemployment rates in the USA and the state can not pay its bills. "Go Green and Starve."

Rolf, you have hit the nail on the head, high energy costs mean less jobs. Solar and wind are a tax on the poor and middle class. You need to look no further than California, high energy costs due to government mandated green energy have driven business out of the state and now California has the one of the highest unemployment rates in the USA and the state can not pay its bills. "Go Green and Starve."

And the Chinese have taken over the German solar panel market, leaving the Germans with no business and some high cost electric power. The German FIT program essentially subsidies wealthy home owners to decorate their roofs with panels paid for by lower and middle income people who can't afford the high upfront cost.

The headline is typical for current anti-feed-in tariff propaganda, which confuses reduced prices for solar with cutting the programs. The "slashes" in fits is not a problem, when it refers to prices--it is actually tremendous victory for feed-in tariff programs that have reduced the cost of solar PV by scaling up panel manufacturing and reducing installation costs. In Germany, the most progressive feed-in tariff program in the world cut the cost of small scale solar PV to less than $3 per watt--a 60% reduction in five years. Countries that have less progressive policies pay double the price for similar solar installations. The dramatic cost reductions caused by feed-in tariffs has been discussed far too little, and is a stunning success.

Those job numbers are likely fiction. Most studies show net job losses as industries are affected by the higher energy costs. 20,000 jobs would mean costs totaling $1-2 billion. Imaging adding that to the kwh currently produced by wind and solar in Ontario. Wind and solar produce so little erratic and usable power, that they can't carry much in the way of labor cost.

We in Estonia are just now begining to develop alternative energy sources. We have significant carbon credits and we are expanding subsidies for solar PV and hot water systems as well as wind and biomass. Your headline could panic would be new comer investors. We at Energy SMart in Estonia are getting ready to put up 11 Deger 900 tracker towers, the same as in Ontario, for our 100kW proof of concept project, that Estonia has more solar resources than Poland or East Germany and our flat relatively empty land could be producing clean solar (and wind)energy into the European grid, instead of waiting for European Union agricultural subsidies which are in doubt for the future anyway.

Viido Polikarpus

Marketing Director
Energy Smart, Estonia
viido.polikarpus@energysmart.ee
www.energysmart.ee