Cost of green energy 40% higher than government estimates: new study

[calculoso]

http://www.globaltoronto.com/cost+of...711/story.html

TORONTO - Ontario residents could end up paying some of the highest costs for electricity in the developing world because providing wind and solar energy will cost about 40 per cent more than government estimates, according to a new study.

...

The average residential user's annual bill, which currently stands at $1,700, will exceed $2,800 by 2015 and be over $4,100 by 2030, it predicts.

Certain costs weren't included in the government's estimates, such as inflation, transmitting electricity to the provincial grid from wind and solar facilities and backup generation for potential disruptions, the study found.

...
The plan also lowballs the costs of backing up renewable energy with natural gas-fired plants when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining, saying it will cost $1.8 billion when it will likely be closer to $9.6 billion.

Energy Minister Brad Duguid called the study "bogus," saying it's full of technical errors and incorrect assumptions. He also took aim at its authors, saying Gallant is known for opposing renewable power.

"It's not an honest study," Duguid said in an interview.

...

The answer is probably somewhere in the middle... but yeah, that's just what is needed. More costs.

[Fire]

Enjoy your Liberal government Ontario. Ha! Ha!

[Devils'Advocate]

I am with Bullfrog Power. I already pay a 40% premium to ensure that my electricity is coming from renewable sources. Sometimes doing the right thing costs money. However, most people would rather spend their money on a big screen TV than protecting the environment.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I am with Bullfrog Power. I already pay a 40% premium to ensure that my electricity is coming from renewable sources. Sometimes doing the right thing costs money. However, most people would rather spend their money on a big screen TV than protecting the environment.

"The plan also lowballs the costs of backing up renewable energy with natural gas-fired plants when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining, saying it will cost $1.8 billion when it will likely be closer to $9.6 billion."

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I am with Bullfrog Power. I already pay a 40% premium to ensure that my electricity is coming from renewable sources. Sometimes doing the right thing costs money. However, most people would rather spend their money on a big screen TV than protecting the environment.

A lot of businesses would also rather use their money investing back in their business as well. It's not like everytime there's a cost tradeoff it's only a matter of consumers with lots of disposable income scaling back on leisure pursuits.

[Devils'Advocate]

"The plan also lowballs the costs of backing up renewable energy with natural gas-fired plants when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining, saying it will cost $1.8 billion when it will likely be closer to $9.6 billion."

I'm not sure how that refutes what I said, but anyway....

Here is a white paper discussion why it is GOOD to pay more for renewable energy rather than burning fossil fuels:
http://www.bullfrogpower.com/whitepa...sion_paper.pdf

[habernac]

Everything costs more initially until the technology is perfected. Remember how expensive flat screen TVs were a few years ago?

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I'm not sure how that refutes what I said, but anyway....

Here is a white paper discussion why it is GOOD to pay more for renewable energy rather than burning fossil fuels:
http://www.bullfrogpower.com/whitepa...sion_paper.pdf

Maybe I should find a white paper (Advertising piece) as to why it's better for me to pay more to buy GAP pants vs. Wal-Mart pants

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

A lot of businesses would also rather use their money investing back in their business as well. It's not like everytime there's a cost tradeoff it's only a matter of consumers with lots of disposable income scaling back on leisure pursuits.

Actually, I think the province trying to move green and making EVERYONE's costs go up is fairer. In a capitalistic market, if one bank chooses to use Bullfrog in their branches, then they are at a competitive disadvantage to the other banks. Doing something good for the environment ends up being punished while those that choose the cheaper fossil fuels are rewarded. So if the Ontario government makes everyone's power green and more expensive, then all the banks go back to being on equal footing. (I'm using banks because I know TD advertises that they use Bullfrog despite the extra cost: http://www.bullfrogpower.com/08relea...anadatrust.cfm )

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Actually, I think the province trying to move green and making EVERYONE's costs go up is fairer. In a capitalistic market, if one bank chooses to use Bullfrog in their branches, then they are at a competitive disadvantage to the other banks. Doing something good for the environment ends up being punished while those that choose the cheaper fossil fuels are rewarded. So if the Ontario government makes everyone's power green and more expensive, then all the banks go back to being on equal footing. (I'm using banks because I know TD advertises that they use Bullfrog despite the extra cost: http://www.bullfrogpower.com/08relea...anadatrust.cfm )

And if the people of Onatrio all want to pay more for energy and thus create a competative disadvantage for themselves in the world marketplace they shouldn't cry to the rest of us about how all their manufacturing jobs got shipped overseas and to other provinces.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

In a capitalistic market, if one bank chooses to use Bullfrog in their branches, then they are at a competitive disadvantage to the other banks.

No, because putting the little Bullfrog sign outside your branches will guarantee you the business of hippies.

Oh wait. Hippies don't have money. They spent it all on green and fair trade products. I see your point.



In seriousness, if the world dumped coal for natural gas, we'd be ahead in both departments. Environmental change that saves money is the easiest kind, so why not start there?



And it's about half the Carbon Dioxide production as well.

[Frank MetaMusil]

NSFW!

/obligatory Carlin

[getbak]

TORONTO - Ontario residents could end up paying some of the highest costs for electricity in the developing world because providing wind and solar energy will cost about 40 per cent more than government estimates, according to a new study.

Man, I knew things were bad, but I didn't know things were so bad in Ontario that they're no longer considered part of the developed world.

[You Need a Thneed]

As has been mentioned, the cost will come down as greener power becomes more widespread, and the technology improves.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I am with Bullfrog Power. I already pay a 40% premium to ensure that my electricity is coming from renewable sources. Sometimes doing the right thing costs money. However, most people would rather spend their money on a big screen TV than protecting the environment.

Or food or rent or bus fees or educational costs for their kids.

[Devils'Advocate]

I support programs to help the low-income / fixed-income people meet their basic needs, including power for their homes.

Funny though. Right wingers typically decry the left for being bleeding hearts for the poor. Yet if it helps them decry doing positive things for the environment, then they are the ones saying "think about those in poverty!!".

I don't think it NEEDS to be an either/or proposition. We should be able to afford BOTH a clean environment *AND* provide the least fortunate among us. Programs such as LIEN ( http://www.lowincomeenergy.ca/about/ ) are a step in that direction.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

And if the people of Onatrio all want to pay more for energy and thus create a competative disadvantage for themselves in the world marketplace they shouldn't cry to the rest of us about how all their manufacturing jobs got shipped overseas and to other provinces.

Ah, yes. Which is why I love the film "The Corporation". The country with the absolute worst labour laws and environmental laws has a competitive advantage. Perhaps we should go back to having slaves as it would give us a competative advantage over other countries? Sometimes doing the morally right thing will have economic repercussions. I loved when Harper stood up to the Chinese on human rights, economics be damned. Sometime you just have to do the right thing.

[jtfrogger]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Funny though. Right wingers typically decry the left for being bleeding hearts for the poor. Yet if it helps them decry doing positive things for the environment, then they are the ones saying "think about those in poverty!!".

If you don't want people throwing that at you, then don't suggest that anyone that disagrees with you is greedy and just wants to waste the money on luxuries. By reading that, I completely dismiss your argument.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

As has been mentioned, the cost will come down as greener power becomes more widespread, and the technology improves.

Enough to ever be economically competitive with fossil fuels? Unlikely.

As has been observed, the environmental impact has lessened immensely along with the huge technological improvements in combustion efficiency.

A move to natural gas would be the cheapest and most effective way to reduce carbon emissions at the moment. Followed closely by Nuclear.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Ah, yes. Which is why I love the film "The Corporation". The country with the absolute worst labour laws and environmental laws has a competitive advantage. Perhaps we should go back to having slaves as it would give us a competative advantage over other countries? Sometimes doing the morally right thing will have economic repercussions. I loved when Harper stood up to the Chinese on human rights, economics be damned. Sometime you just have to do the right thing.

Comparing human rights to an unproven scientific theory is not 'doing the right thing'.