Monday, March 16, 2009

More from Tyler Hamilton

From the March 12 Toronto Star:
Developers of multi-megawatt solar projects, meanwhile, said a tariff of 44.3 cents for power from large solar farms still wouldn't make such initiatives economical enough to proceed. One solar-industry executive, who didn't want to be named, cited a tight capital market and poor exchange rate for the concern. "The math still does not work," he said.

"We are angry because the various government agencies kept telling us not to make waves, that the new numbers would play into the developers' favour. All are feeling shafted."

Obviously 35 cents per kWh is not going to be enough to make solar work. Those Canadians just hate the environment.

6 comments:

DV8 2XL said...

All of Ontario's 'green energy' initiatives are nothing more than a Trojan Horse for natural gas generation. Period.

The whole thing is a farce of epic proportions that is only tolerable because it is also serving as a smoke screen for new nuclear capacity.

Warren Heath said...

If subsidies of upwards of 40 cents a kwh will only increase the average power bill by 1%, according to the Ontario Government, the logical implication is that they expect that Solar & Wind will supply an insignificant amount of Ontario's Electricity for a long time to come. Pretty pathetic considering the huge subdidies.

lad said...

In the meantime, Shell announced yesterday that they will no longer be investing in wind and solar projects as they are not 'economic'. It makes one wonder how many billions of dollars will be wasted before governments come to the same conclusion.

lad said...

In a new study, Dr. Gabriel Calzada of Spain exposes the myth of "Green Jobs" by stating that 3.9 jobs have been lost for every 'green' job that was created in that country. I would imagine the lost jobs were private sector and that the taxpayers are likely subsidizing the green job in some fashion. This is the pipedream on which the Ontario government is basing our economic recovery.

Charles Barton said...

No doubt shell economists see the same thing that I do, namely the cost of making solar and wind dispatchable is extremely expensive, and while cost as much as conventional nuclear power, will be less flexible. Solar and wind are losers on the post carbon grid. Shell has still not gotten the who message, because they are still holding on to the idea of liquid fuels ion the post carbon environment. It is my view that both the economic and environmental issues of the biomass fuel approach make it every bit as much a business looser as solar and wind.

mdf said...

Shell has still not gotten the who message, because they are still holding on to the idea of liquid fuels ion the post carbon environment.

Liquid fuels are going to be important even post-carbon (eg, aircraft). The only difference will be the feedstock: today we make the stuff from fossil sources; we will have to find other sources in the future. Olah (et al) lays out a reasonable plan in his "Beyond Oil and Gas: The Methanol Economy" book:

http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Oil-Gas-Methanol-Economy/dp/3527312757

They are big on nuclear power driving the conversion processes.

Near as I can tell, the economic entities capable of pulling off the necessary production are going to be derived from current oil companies. Perhaps someone should send Shell a copy of the book?

Followers

Blog Archive

Some neat videos

Nuclear Advocacy Webring
Ring Owner: Nuclear is Our Future Site: Nuclear is Our Future
Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet
Get Your Free Web Ring
by Bravenet.com
Dr. Joe Bonometti speaking on thorium/LFTR technology at Georgia Tech David LeBlanc on LFTR/MSR technology Robert Hargraves on AIM High