# Greening Ontario electricity ... the true story



## Lake Girl (Apr 16, 2016)

Heard Hydro One (the Ontario electric utility) will be getting the third rate hike since November.  Apparently with the mild winter, Ontario residents have used less electricity.  A good thing you would think ... conservation being a concept pushed in the media and their fliers that come in the mail.  Not so fast ... Hydro One sold off some of its shares to raise capital for provincial infrastructure projects and with lower electric use, profits are down.  Apparently generation is higher than needed and sold off to our neighbours in the US.  Good for them as Hydro One is selling at a loss.  Who makes up for that loss in profits?  You guessed it ... Ontario residents who are a captive audience...hence the rate hike.  The moral of the story, it costs more to use less 
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/electricity-ontario-1.3538157


----------



## Highbeam (Apr 16, 2016)

Lake Girl said:


> Heard Hydro One (the Ontario electric utility) will be getting the third rate hike since November.  Apparently with the mild winter, Ontario residents have used less electricity.  A good thing you would think ... conservation being a concept pushed in the media and their fliers that come in the mail.  Not so fast ... Hydro One sold off some of its shares to raise capital for provincial infrastructure projects and with lower electric use, profits are down.  Apparently generation is higher than needed and sold off to our neighbours in the US.  Good for them as Hydro One is selling at a loss.  Who makes up for that loss in profits?  You guessed it ... Ontario residents who are a captive audience...hence the rate hike.  The moral of the story, it costs more to use less
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/electricity-ontario-1.3538157



Repeated at every utility everywhere. Water, sewer, power, even garbage. It comes from the fairness of an adequate base rate for having the utility available balanced with a consumption fee that actually reflects the price per unit. People don't like high base rates but that would smooth out the revenue and prevent most of these rate hikes.


----------



## LowbanksArcher (Apr 16, 2016)

Don't forget the high taxpayer cost of shoving massive wind turbines down that throats of rural Ontarians like myself. Our peaceful country side has become and industrial construction warzone. 

Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk


----------



## Lake Girl (Apr 16, 2016)

Noticed the windmills on the way to Dunnville from the lake.  Here we have feed-in solar arrays that were encouraged by a high rate of return so the province could tout how green our energy is...

Base rate?  That would be the delivery charge that is essentially equal to the electrical usage...


----------



## Highbeam (Apr 18, 2016)

Lake Girl said:


> Base rate? That would be the delivery charge that is essentially equal to the electrical usage...



Right, but the delivery charge is used to pay for all of the powerlines. It's probably also billed to you as a cost per kwh, right? We all know that the powerlines aren't any harder to maintain if they deliver more or less energy to your home so the delivery charge is just a thinly disguised consumption charge.

A real base rate (delivery charge) would not float based on consumption, it would be fixed to cover the actual cost of delivering power whether you used it or not. Then there would be less incentive to conserve but a more stable bill. Also, it costs the same to make power available to your home with 100 kwh hours use per month as it does to your neighbor who used 2000. So you would pay close to the same amount.

The actual floating cost of power is a low part of the utilities costs. It's all of those wires and overhead, the fixed costs, artificially made floating by tying them to consumption in an effort to be fair.


----------



## jb6l6gc (Apr 18, 2016)

LowbanksArcher said:


> Don't forget the high taxpayer cost of shoving massive wind turbines down that throats of rural Ontarians like myself. Our peaceful country side has become and industrial construction warzone.
> 
> Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk


Yes gotta love all those windmills behind us eh lowbanks.
Im just in between dunnville and cayuga on the grand, so very close to you, thankfully from my place they are barely visible through the forest.
I just saw all the new ones going up toward niagara area on friday, I really love how those transmission lines and huge poles make the nice scenic rural drive look now... What a freakin joke the ontario government is.


----------



## Lake Girl (Apr 18, 2016)

Was really saddened the last time I went through Vineland ... used to go get canning veggies from there with my Great Auntie.  The old orchards and farms have disappeared and replaced with condos.  The wine/ice wine market seems to be doing well though


----------



## LowbanksArcher (Apr 19, 2016)

jb6l6gc said:


> Yes gotta love all those windmills behind us eh lowbanks.
> Im just in between dunnville and cayuga on the grand, so very close to you, thankfully from my place they are barely visible through the forest.
> I just saw all the new ones going up toward niagara area on friday, I really love how those transmission lines and huge poles make the nice scenic rural drive look now... What a freakin joke the ontario government is.


I likely drive past your house everyday then. Live near the village of Stromness, but work in Ancaster. Ya, it's getting real ugly around here. These will be the biggest ever built in North America(so far), 575ft tall, and they've built one 80 meters from the property line of our family farm. Pretty ridiculous. Worst part, I had planned to build a house in that spot in the next few years. That dream is now gone. 
That said, since putting in my woodstove a couple months ago, my hydro bill dropped $40+. It must drive Wynne nuts. Not using as much of her hydro, AND burning fuel she can't tax! I can see a wood stove tax in the future


----------



## Lake Girl (Apr 19, 2016)

Just found this proposed wind turbine plan ... existing and new.  Wow.  A lot of farmlands are no longer farm lands.  Wonder if they are a property lease system.

PS  The family property is above the "b" in Lowbanks...


----------



## jb6l6gc (Apr 19, 2016)

It is a lease system for the land. I
Know for the ones that are already up, they require 1acre of land when finished and an access road. The property owners will get somewhere around 67k$  per year , per windmill for 20 yrs. Then if I remember correctly the ownership of the turbine
Is turned over to the property owner. So me and my Neighbour were dicussing how your gonna see these things as skeletons in the skyline of a bad decision as I doubt anyone is gonna
Refurbish them when they've reached their lifespan.

Low banks you probably do drive right by my place. I am at the Corner of haldimand 17 and 32(which turns to hwy56)


----------



## jb6l6gc (Apr 19, 2016)

LowbanksArcher said:


> I likely drive past your house everyday then. Live near the village of Stromness, but work in Ancaster. Ya, it's getting real ugly around here. These will be the biggest ever built in North America(so far), 575ft tall, and they've built one 80 meters from the property line of our family farm. Pretty ridiculous. Worst part, I had planned to build a house in that spot in the next few years. That dream is now gone.
> That said, since putting in my woodstove a couple months ago, my hydro bill dropped $40+. It must drive Wynne nuts. Not using as much of her hydro, AND burning fuel she can't tax! I can see a wood stove tax in the future


I Wish my hydro was $40. My
House is all electric cause there is no gas unless you drill your own well. That said when I'm On wood I Was able to get my bills around $75 last year, but
Hooray this year I used less and paid more. Another kick in the b***s! 
I think the government Thinks we the regular folk are a never ending cash cow. As well I Don't think wynns government has any respect for rural folk. Maybe she thinks we should all live in Toronto and pay a million bucks for a
Townhouse!!


----------



## LowbanksArcher (Apr 19, 2016)

jb6l6gc said:


> I Wish my hydro was $40. My
> House is all electric cause there is no gas unless you drill your own well. That said when I'm On wood I Was able to get my bills around $75 last year, but
> Hooray this year I used less and paid more. Another kick in the b***s!
> I think the government Thinks we the regular folk are a never ending cash cow. As well I Don't think wynns government has any respect for rural folk. Maybe she thinks we should all live in Toronto and pay a million bucks for a
> Townhouse!!


No no no. Not a $40 hydro bill total. I mean my hydro bill went down by $40 since running my woodstove instead of forced air propane furnace. So more like $110 instead of $150. I'm pretty sure I'll never see a bill under $100 again.


----------



## jb6l6gc (Apr 19, 2016)

Sorry read that wrong!


----------



## jebatty (Apr 20, 2016)

Highbeam said:


> A real base rate (delivery charge) would not float based on consumption, it would be fixed to cover the actual cost of delivering power whether you used it or not. Then there would be less incentive to conserve but a more stable bill. Also, it costs the same to make power available to your home with 100 kwh hours use per month as it does to your neighbor who used 2000. So you would pay close to the same amount.
> 
> The actual floating cost of power is a low part of the utilities costs. It's all of those wires and overhead, the fixed costs, artificially made floating by tying them to consumption in an effort to be fair.


 I think there is room for disagreement on this, meaning that it makes a lot of sense for a base rate to float based on consumption. It doesn't cost the same to make power available to a home that uses 100 kWh/month as it does to the neighbor who uses 2000 kWh/month. If all users were at 100 kWh/month, then much less transmission capacity (and at much less cost) would be needed than if all users were at 2000 kWh/month. The high consumption users should pay a higher base rate than the low consumption users, otherwise the low consumption users are subsidizing a transmission system needed because of the high consumption users.

It would make more logical sense to price the base rate on a user's peak demand because that is what would more accurately reflect the user's need for transmission capacity.


----------



## jb6l6gc (Apr 20, 2016)

jebatty said:


> I think there is room for disagreement on this, meaning that it makes a lot of sense for a base rate to float based on consumption. It doesn't cost the same to make power available to a home that uses 100 kWh/month as it does to the neighbor who uses 2000 kWh/month. If all users were at 100 kWh/month, then much less transmission capacity (and at much less cost) would be needed than if all users were at 2000 kWh/month. The high consumption users should pay a higher base rate than the low consumption users, otherwise the low consumption users are subsidizing a transmission system needed because of the high consumption users.
> 
> It would make more logical sense to price the base rate on a user's peak demand because that is what would more accurately reflect the user's need for transmission capacity.


I would disagree on this for sure, every other thing you buy cost goes down as consumption goes up (the old buy in bulk addage).  Let us not forget we're talking about a province that is far over producing power and then selling it to you guys for peanuts of what its costing us to produce, and ontarians like me are the ones stuck footing the bill for all these green energy initiatives and all these new transmission lines.
Residential lines are usually only redone when they've hit their usable life expectancy, the lines are always carrying power so really no difference whether they're used or not. Also In most rural areas allot of people have to use more electricity that the average city dweller, just due to availability of other alternative utilities, ie.natural gas etc.

Not trying to start an argument here, just my opinions on the matter


----------



## jebatty (Apr 20, 2016)

Certainly areas of agreement and disagreement. The utility markets are a mixture of regulated prices (rates) and competitive prices. I suspect that the wind turbines were built not just to serve your area of Ontario but instead were built to be part of a regional or national plan of clean energy grid development. Therefore, it is likely that more were built than locally needed and transmission capacity and substations were built to meet the larger capacity and larger market, not just your local needs.

Unfortunately, it also is likely that some of the larger market (sales to the US, for example) is competitive and your local market is not competitive, with the result being that regulators have shifted to the local market fixed costs (turbines, transmission lines, substations) that cannot be recovered in the competitive market. 

I don't agree that "the lines are always carrying power so really no difference whether they're used or not." The question is how much power, not that they always are carrying power. They need to carry enough power to meet peak demands in a service territory. Defining the territory is an issue. Determining who is consuming the most power is an issue. As mentioned above, if everyone only needed a small peak load, it would be easy to plan the system. But if some have erratic and large peak loads, then capacity needs to be provided to meet that need. And in my opinion, it is the larger, peak load customers that need the more expensive transmission capacity, and they should pay a larger share of the fixed costs as compared to a small user. Therefore, fixed costs should be variable based on the peak load needs of the customer.

I understand your plight. I would gripe too in your situation. I face a similar situation as our local utility keeps raising the base rate (fixed charge). My efforts of conservation (and also my own solar PV system) have greatly reduced my kWh usage, but my bill has gone down little due to increases in the base rate. I have no objection to a "fair and reasonable" base rate, but I would argue that the "fair and reasonable" base rate needs to be variable and increase according to the peak demand of the customers. How to measure and do that may be complicated, but a simple flat charge regardless of usage is not fair and reasonable.


----------



## jb6l6gc (Apr 20, 2016)

jebatty said:


> Certainly areas of agreement and disagreement. The utility markets are a mixture of regulated prices (rates) and competitive prices. I suspect that the wind turbines were built not just to serve your area of Ontario but instead were built to be part of a regional or national plan of clean energy grid development. Therefore, it is likely that more were built than locally needed and transmission capacity and substations were built to meet the larger capacity and larger market, not just your local needs.
> 
> Unfortunately, it also is likely that some of the larger market (sales to the US, for example) is competitive and your local market is not competitive, with the result being that regulators have shifted to the local market fixed costs (turbines, transmission lines, substations) that cannot be recovered in the competitive market.
> 
> ...


Agreed but funny thing is we've been on variable time of use and peak rates for a long time.  Here we don't have any choice in our provider. We must buy from whomever owns the area!


----------



## Highbeam (Apr 20, 2016)

jebatty said:


> I don't agree that "the lines are always carrying power so really no difference whether they're used or not." The question is how much power, not that they always are carrying power. They need to carry enough power to meet peak demands in a service territory.



Good points jebatty but I think you are giving far too much weight to the size (capacity) of a transmission line being a significant part of the transmission costs. It's not and as such, the peak demand or relative average demand is of nearly no consequence. Also lumped in with "transmission" costs are all of the overhead, billing, profit, the poles, the ROW maintenance, etc. that make up the huge the majority of the delivery charge.



jebatty said:


> It doesn't cost the same to make power available to a home that uses 100 kWh/month as it does to the neighbor who uses 2000 kWh/month.



Strongly disagree. It really does cost the same to make power available to each of those neighbors. Both of those homes are equipped with residential services and each has the potential to have the same peak demand. Utilities that offer service must offer a complete service so whether the user uses it fully is not part of the calculation.


----------



## jebatty (Apr 21, 2016)

Highbeam said:


> Strongly disagree. It really does cost the same to make power available to each of those neighbors. Both of those homes are equipped with residential services and each has the potential to have the same peak demand. Utilities that offer service must offer a complete service so whether the user uses it fully is not part of the calculation.


 I think you made my point. Reduce the potential of having the same peak demand among a population of users and the need for a more robust distribution system disappears. Users of electricity have been living in a culture of unlimited power availability without need for conservation. Change the culture and the need for capacity in the distribution system diminishes. Fewer substations, lower transmission line voltages, less robust poles and smaller ROW's, less generation capacity, etc. No need for that new nuclear or coal plant to be funded by charges for generated power. In fact, an ability to retire without replacing aged generating facilities.


----------



## jb6l6gc (Apr 21, 2016)

jebatty said:


> Users of electricity have been living in a culture of unlimited power availability without need for conservation. Change the culture and the need f


You may have missed in this thread where Ontario is raising rates due to conservation and less usage amongst users.  I believe I speak for most when I say that we are using less electricity than ever before. At least here in Ontario that is!
Less usage is equaling higher rates, at least here in Ontario


----------



## jb6l6gc (Apr 21, 2016)

They are raising the rates to pay for the governments pet projects in green energy.  They've closed many coal fired plants and built these windmills and now solar farms without any demand for more production.


----------



## jebatty (Apr 21, 2016)

Didn't miss that thread at all. If a utility has costs of X, and rate revenues of $A due to sales of kWh, and sales of kWh fall for whatever reason, it will want to raise revenues to $A+B to cover costs. The utility in a monopoly regulated environment has a failing business model. Any other business would have to cut costs, be innovative, find new product lines, etc. to survive. But not the utility - just raise rates!.

Land line phone companies faced and continue to face the same scenario with cellular competition. So now also the wired cable companies with competition from satellite. It is another discussion on what regulated utilities must do to survive in changing world.


----------



## jebatty (Apr 21, 2016)

jb6l6gc said:


> They are raising the rates to pay for the governments pet projects in green energy.


 Without dealing with any issue of over production, raising rates to pay for green energy has the effect of a carbon tax on non-green energy. The higher rates for green energy are paying for 0 carbon, 0 acid, 0 mercury, 0 heavy metals emitted by coal fired power plants. In other words, the higher rates are now are requiring users to start paying the previous non-measured costs of pollutant energy, costs that were there in health and environmental destruction but not being paid for in rates. More and more electricity will now avoid those costs. Higher rates, yes. Lower health costs, yes. Cleaner and healthier air, water and soil for all living things, yes.


----------



## peakbagger (Apr 21, 2016)

In order to support going green, Ontario had to build some very large power plants about 8 years ago. I believe they had a third party build them and guaranteed a future demand for power over some long period. Usually its take or pay so if there is a large contribution from renewable the utility is also paying the natural gas plants not to run. I am aware of a 990 MW plant in Brampton and 660 MW retrofit just north of Toronto and expect there were a few more built elsewhere in the province.


----------



## Lake Girl (Apr 21, 2016)

http://www.torontosun.com/2016/04/12/green-energy-puts-ontarians-in-the-red

Feed-in rates:  http://fit.powerauthority.on.ca/sites/default/files/version4/FIT-Price-Schedule-2016-01-01.pdf

Atikokan GS was converted from coal to pellets... $200M project but not sure what costs are associated with pellet supply.  Nanticoke GS was just closed. 

Hydro-electric dams: http://www.opg.com/generating-power/hydro/northwest-ontario/Pages/northwest-ontario.aspx
This does not include others ie Kenora, Fort Frances, Crilly Lake ... I'm sure there are others.  These dams were owned by pulp/paper mills and have been separated from those operations as a stand alone.  I know the bio-gen that was built with government subsidy has sat idle for 2 years on the Resolute property.

Dunnville transmission availability is done ... Very limited options in my area.
FITs availability chart:  http://fit.powerauthority.on.ca/sit...ion4/FIT-4-TS-TAT-table-final-July-9-2015.pdf
http://www.hydroone.com/RegulatoryA...t A/Tab_6_Sched_1-Transmission_System_Map.pdf

Manitoba Hydro 
7.672¢/kWh with base fee of $7.57 monthly

Minnesota 11.35¢/kWh not sure on the base rate

Ontario $8.3 off peak; $12.8 mid peak; $ 17.5 peak plus transmission rate approximately equal to kWh use.  Another rate hike real soon...


----------



## Highbeam (Apr 21, 2016)

jebatty said:


> I think you made my point. Reduce the potential of having the same peak demand among a population of users and the need for a more robust distribution system disappears. Users of electricity have been living in a culture of unlimited power availability without need for conservation. Change the culture and the need for capacity in the distribution system diminishes. Fewer substations, lower transmission line voltages, less robust poles and smaller ROW's, less generation capacity, etc. No need for that new nuclear or coal plant to be funded by charges for generated power. In fact, an ability to retire without replacing aged generating facilities.



A complimentary point actually. You are approaching the question from a theoretical possibility and I am explaining the current state of affairs.

I will agree that if every homes meter was limited to 100 amps instead of 200 amps that some trivial amount of money could be saved on wire size and more could be saved on generating capacity. Same number of substations, same voltages, same poles, same ROW, but less generation capacity and possibly smaller wires.

We already do this to some extent. You can buy a 100 amp meter, 200 amp meter, or 320 (might be 360 I forget) sized meter for your residence. The huge majority are 200 amp meters. The "delivery" charge is the same regardless so there is very little reward for limiting yourself to a smaller peak demand. A higher fixed base rate would make sense for a larger meter.

The point of this thread is that so much of the utility's revenue is directly tied to consumption that a drop in that consumption makes it impossible to cover the fixed costs of keeping the delivery system available. The variable cost of power tied to that actual consumption by the consumers is a very small part of the revenue requirements. In an effort to reward conservation and be fair, the billing system heavily depends on consumption which creates a shortfall when people actually conserve.

Don't fool yourself, the utility does NOT want you to conserve. Their business is selling power. If you do conserve then they will necessarily raise rates per unit of power or raise the portion of the bill that is fixed in an effort to remain "whole" and pay their bills. The regulating body of utilities in the US approves rate hikes and the necessary/customary utility profit margin is sufficient reason to raise rates. It's a rigged game on purpose. The utility business is not risky which is why so many of us invest in utilities for the steady (though lower) returns.


----------



## Highbeam (Apr 21, 2016)

jebatty said:


> The utility in a monopoly regulated environment has a failing business model. Any other business would have to cut costs, be innovative, find new product lines, etc. to survive. But not the utility - just raise rates!.
> 
> Land line phone companies faced and continue to face the same scenario with cellular competition. So now also the wired cable companies with competition from satellite. It is another discussion on what regulated utilities must do to survive in changing world.



The utility in a monopoly regulated environment is not in a failing business model. It is in a guaranteed WIN business model. The regulation works both ways. They can't raise the rates without reason, but the reason can be as simple as maintaining the customary profit. This is by design. Since the monopoly utility only invested in infrastructure if they could be guaranteed the profit AND the utility is an essential service. We need them and they need us. The regulating body maintains a level of restraint.

The really cool thing about our times on this planet are the alternatives that have broken the monopolies. How cool. Cable, phone, are excellent examples of how when an alternative breaks the monopoly the utilities lose the ability to get their guaranteed profit. I no longer have cable or phone service to my home.  

I believe that once battery technology takes the next leap that solar plus battery will mean many of us can completely "cut the cord" to our power companies. That will shake up the utility system so much that strange things will happen. Only city dwellers without space for solar will need this piped electricity. They won't want to pay the rates necessary to keep the utility monster alive so.....


----------



## jb6l6gc (Apr 21, 2016)

In response to the 0 emissions of these green energy initiatives, everyone seems to forget the building, installation  and maintenance of these things does have a fairly significant carbon footprint. The windmills use a very large amount of gear and hydraulic oil which has to be changed out regularly as well. I just think we are already paying one of the highest rates for electricity and it keeps on going up. This government has a very bad track record for their spending.


----------



## Highbeam (Apr 21, 2016)

jb6l6gc said:


> The windmills use a very large amount of gear and hydraulic oil which has to be changed out regularly as well



And recycled! One time construction pollution is similar whether building powerplants that use fossil fuel or not. Same with these solar panels, they take an upfront investment in resources/pollution. We need to consider the whole lifecycle.


----------



## jb6l6gc (Apr 21, 2016)

I get all these posts I really do! Conservation and green energy are important...however if you lived where I live and have all this stuff in your backyard and then got bills that are significantly higher. I mean 40-50$ more for electricity and still using less and less. Wait they made sure to put I saved 10$ because they paid off the last debt. Don't get me started on that. 
Ontario has a serious problem with how the government is constantly spending. They go into debt just to create pet projects and temporary jobs, but jobs so they can sell it to the masses.


----------



## LowbanksArcher (Apr 22, 2016)

jb6l6gc said:


> In response to the 0 emissions of these green energy initiatives, everyone seems to forget the building, installation  and maintenance of these things does have a fairly significant carbon footprint. The windmills use a very large amount of gear and hydraulic oil which has to be changed out regularly as well. I just think we are already paying one of the highest rates for electricity and it keeps on going up. This government has a very bad track record for their spending.


Greeny grass green


----------



## begreen (Apr 22, 2016)

Brilliant, Klavan paints the expert as an idiotic robot. That is such an accurate picture. Humans are imperfect, but hopefully growing and progressing in spite of inherent greed. Here are a bit more intelligent presentations by market professionals. Happy Earth Day.
http://www.ted.com/talks/geoff_mulgan_post_crash_investing_in_a_better_world_1
http://www.ted.com/talks/pavan_sukhdev_what_s_the_price_of_nature

In the meantime, the alternative is not working out too well at all. 
http://billmoyers.com/story/global-warmings-terrifying-new-chemistry/


----------



## iamlucky13 (Apr 22, 2016)

Highbeam said:


> The utility in a monopoly regulated environment is not in a failing business model. It is in a guaranteed WIN business model. The regulation works both ways. They can't raise the rates without reason, but the reason can be as simple as maintaining the customary profit. This is by design. Since the monopoly utility only invested in infrastructure if they could be guaranteed the profit AND the utility is an essential service. We need them and they need us. The regulating body maintains a level of restraint.



The level of restraint varies, though. I used to live in an area where the local utility was a publicly-traded company. I bought some of their stock because I figured as long as my monthly bill is a guaranteed profit for them, why not recoup some of that profit from their dividends? It's been a solid investment. Since I've been watching the company more closely, I don't recall the regulatory agency ever denying a rate raise request. At most, they very slightly trim them, but the trend handily outpaces inflation.

Unfortunately, now I'm served by a PUD, but the public ownership doesn't seem to be any better. Their interest does not seem to be cost-effectiveness for the customers, or even the best compromise in pursuit of goals like lowering emissions. It seems instead to be maximizing their budget.



Highbeam said:


> The really cool thing about our times on this planet are the alternatives that have broken the monopolies.



I'm not seeing it happening. Instead, they've realized they can jump on the alternatives, collect the tax credits, and request rate increases if the tax credits don't cover any increased costs. This article discusses the trend, focusing on the for-profit utility I mentioned above:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-utilities-team-up-with-greens-against-consumers-1456530275


----------



## jb6l6gc (Apr 22, 2016)

^^^ am I right! I work for a corporation. Profits are #1!


----------



## LowbanksArcher (Apr 23, 2016)

Well, went for a walk through our woods today, and here's the view from my property line. This is a parcel of land we own that was earmarked for me to build a home one day. 
It's just not right what they're doing to people here. The lots are too small, neighbours too close. But the subsidies are big, and so become our electricity bills.


----------



## Lake Girl (Apr 23, 2016)

Sorry to see ... how big a parcel of land?  Other options on house location with it's own solar array?  My undeveloped property will not be attached to grid if I can help it!


----------



## jebatty (Apr 24, 2016)

LowbanksArcher said:


> It's just not right what they're doing to people here. The lots are too small, neighbours too close. But the subsidies are big, and so become our electricity bills.


 A big part of me agrees with you, and another part wonders whether the presence of wind turbines in a large area of Ontario also connects people (maybe with distaste) with the source of electricity, right in their front or back yards, rather than in a distant coal fired and polluting generating plant. On so many things society saddles one group of people (or the environment) with a burden to benefit another group of people who can live an undisturbed life with all the benefits of the burden on others. Maybe there will be a positive side: increased conservation to reduce the need for polluting electricity, along with improved health from non-polluting sourced electricity. 

In the area where I live forests are being ripped out to create new agricultural fields, just to grow corn, soybeans and potatoes. Rich and vibrant forest ecosystems, which also contribute massive quantities of clean water to aquifers and streams, are turned into environmental deserts that dump pesticides, herbicides and polluting fertilizers into the aquifers and streams. Poisoned, unclean and unhealthy drinking water is "cropping" up at more and more places. Maybe connecting more people with the dirty side of big agriculture will have a positive effect of ag cleaning up its act, and hopefully this happens before it is too late.

And as you intimate, Lowbanks Archer, perhaps just another case of "follow the money."


----------



## Lake Girl (Apr 24, 2016)

jebatty said:


> distant coal fired and polluting generating plant


At one time, there were 5 coal fired generators in Ontario ... Nanticoke now closed, Atikokan converted to pellet, Lambton, Thunder Bay going to biomass, Lakeview demolished.  Lakeview was one of the plants that was to be converted to NG but became a political boondoggle.

"They could have done better in Lakeview. Instead, by backing down, they are now the proud owners of three started and stopped power projects west of Toronto, one $190-million payout, another settlement pending for the Oakville plant, and not a single megawatt of power produced for the growing, intensifying area. And no appropriate sites to build a new plant."
http://o.canada.com/news/how-ontario-could-have-avoided-the-180-million-power-plant-boondoggle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generating_stations_in_Ontario
The bulk of generation is either nuclear (12,900MW), NG (13,933MW) or hydroelectric (8,129MW).  Interesting that there are no numbers for solar.... biomass/landfill gas (360MW) and wind (1,246MW).

The 2010 Bird/Bat report for the Wolfe Island wind farm showed approximately 14 bird strikes per year per turbine versus industry average of 2 per year...

PS ... Nice in theory to place production "in your face" except this only is the more rural section of southern Ontario and the larger centres like Mississauga ie. Lakeview GS don't have to deal with the reminder of where their power comes from.

Cost over runs on the nukes have been ridiculous and now we are in the refurbishment phase...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/darlington-nuclear-refurbishment-1.3395696


----------



## Lake Girl (Apr 24, 2016)

http://www.powerauthority.on.ca/current-electricity-contracts/solar


----------



## Lake Girl (Apr 24, 2016)

Greenwich windfarm near Dorion receives the community nod while the Big Thunder Wind farm was protested vigorously by residents and Fort William first nation.  Views from Mount McKay are amazing and there is a huge historical significance to the area for both the general population and the first nations... 
https://www.nationaltrustcanada.ca/...gs/ontario/nor’wester-mountain-range-and-loch


----------



## Highbeam (Apr 25, 2016)

NIMBY


----------



## georgepds (Apr 25, 2016)

Thank you Canada

"The economic analysis asserts that residents would see a net benefit of $171 million a year in savings from long-term contracts for hydropower and windpower from Canada and northern New England. The study was conducted by Power Advisory for the *Massachusetts *Clean Energy Partnership, a coalition of wind, hydro and transmission companies."

http://www.berkshireeagle.com/edito...ydro-wind?mc_cid=17f963cf18&mc_eid=43ddca35db


----------



## georgepds (Apr 25, 2016)

LowbanksArcher said:


> Well, went for a walk through our woods today, and here's the view from my property line. ....
> 
> View attachment 178235



I think it's beautiful.. eyes of the beholder and all that..

I started going through Spain in the early 90's, mostly south central and south west (dry and arid, think Arizona) . At that time it was all dirt roads and bare ridges. These days it's highways, and ridges filled with windmills. Aesthetically, some are displeased, but not me. I can't get enough of the windmills.


----------



## LowbanksArcher (Apr 25, 2016)

georgepds said:


> I think it's beautiful.. eyes of the beholder and all that..
> 
> I started going through Spain in the early 90's, mostly south central and south west (dry and arid, think Arizona) . At that time it was all dirt roads and bare ridges. These days it's highways, and ridges filled with windmills. Aesthetically, some are displeased, but not me. I can't get enough of the windmills.


True. Many seem to like the look of them. The sound is another thing. Fine for people passing through from the city on their weekend drive. But for us in the country who have to live in their flickering shadow and hear them all day and night, different story. Not to mention the loss in property value. Oh, and the greedy neighbour cashes in big time, while your land value/children's inheritance suffers. I know of a neighbour down the road who feels vibrations in his home from a nearby turbine when the ground is frozen. That kind of stuff is simply unacceptable.


----------



## iamlucky13 (Apr 25, 2016)

This video claims to include calibrated recordings of actual turbine sounds at distances from 2 km down to 250 meters (820 feet).

http://video.arup.com/?v=1_pqe8e2or

Does anybody who has been near a turbine have commentary on how accurate the video is?

I've been intending to go visit a wind farm in our area that has publicly accessible roads through the farm in large part because I want to get a sense of the supposed noise issue. I drive past the farm several times a year, but have never had time to go out on the trails. However, at a rest stop adjacent to the wind farm, which based on the distance scale on Google Maps is about 300 meters away from the nearest turbine, I've never been able to hear anything from the turbines.


----------



## Where2 (Apr 25, 2016)

iamlucky13 said:


> I've been intending to go visit a wind farm in our area that has publicly accessible roads through the farm in large part because I want to get a sense of the supposed noise issue.



Make sure you visit on a day the wind is blowing. Because I had read so many opinions on the subject on the internet, my wife and I actually made a point to stop and walk up within 100' of the base of the turbine that the University of Maine has on their UMPI campus. (Google Maps coordinates: 46.667382N, 68.020151W). I certainly encourage anyone who wonders about turbine noise to find an accessible windmill for themselves.

My house has been situated within 1200' of an active Class I/Class II freight railroad for 50+ years. This part of South Florida is all built on sand, so the house resonates every time a freight train goes by (14+ times per day, 7 days per week). The thing you notice resonating most are the springs on the back of decorative plate hangers, and the medicine cabinet glass doors on the second floor. Despite half a century of daily vibration, my slab on grade has only one minor 23" long crack in it which has not seemed to lengthen in the 18 years I've owned the house. We will never know whether the crack was caused by the trains, poor compaction of the soil, or missing reinforcement within the slab. I have no carpet, the entire first floor is exposed terrazzo (original to the house). If there were other cracks, I'd know about them. The rail line predates my house by 70 years...


----------



## Lake Girl (Apr 25, 2016)

Didn't realize this ... air pressure changes... https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14593-wind-turbines-make-bat-lungs-explode/

Approximately 40-50 decibels at 250m (820 feet)  compares to: https://www.chem.purdue.edu/chemsafety/Training/PPETrain/dblevels.htm
Intensity is measured in decibels while pitch is measured in Hz.  Hz is not accounted for in the study linked above

wikipedia:   
... More recent studies have suggested that noise levels of 50 dB(A) at night may also increase the risk of myocardial infarction by chronically elevating cortisol production.[20][21][22]
... lower threshold for noise producing sleep disturbance is 45 dB(A) or lower.[31]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_from_noise

I am familiar with the area near LowbanksArcher and this area is very rural land with very low ambient noises.  Like my home, you can hear a vehicle coming from a long ways off...



georgepds said:


> Thank you Canada


I'd rather have lower electrical rates thanks


----------



## Highbeam (Apr 26, 2016)

iamlucky13 said:


> I've been intending to go visit a wind farm in our area that has publicly accessible roads through the farm in large part because I want to get a sense of the supposed noise issue. I drive past the farm several times a year, but have never had time to go out on the trails. However, at a rest stop adjacent to the wind farm, which based on the distance scale on Google Maps is about 300 meters away from the nearest turbine, I've never been able to hear anything from the turbines.



Ryegrass summit on I90 I'd guess.


----------



## begreen (Apr 28, 2016)

Interesting to note that in 2015, 63,135 MW of wind power capacity was added globally, a 23.2% increase from the 51,230 MW installed in 2014. Much of this annual record was driven by China, which installed a remarkable 30,293 MW.


----------



## Lake Girl (Apr 28, 2016)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/electric-car-charging-stations-set-up-along-hwy-401-1.1932075

Twenty new charging stations ... Windsor to the Quebec border.  Guess the rest of Ontario doesn't count.  The other charging stations are "sponsored" through Sun Country Highway.


----------



## dougstove (Apr 29, 2016)

With all respect to rural/exurb living, converting agricultural land or forests to 1-2 acre exurb lots is terrible for the environment.
A landscape chopped up into small personal plots is much less sustainable than a continuous countryside dotted with village clusters that could (theoretically) be served by bus and by a health centre.
Most people only actually want/are able to live on their exurb acreage for a few years; after the kids are grown, before physical decline.

An agricultural or forest landscape dotted with windmills is more appealing to me than the endless exurb sprawl that has claimed the land between Toronto & Waterloo (and, yes, I own land in the country that I chose to leave agricultural/forest, rather than living on it).


----------



## Lake Girl (Apr 29, 2016)

dougstove said:


> after the kids are grown, before physical decline.


How old are you dougstove?  Just trying to figure out where that viewpoint is coming from ... personal experience or just a guess?  Most of the farms I've encountered are multi-generational with parents continuing to work the farm into their 70-80s.  Even with physical decline, the wealth of knowledge the elders have acquired through their lifetime is immense.  My Great Uncle "retired" to farm (for northern markets) in Florida in his 70s...

The Meyers family farm north of Trenton ... 225 years old and held by the descendants the whole time ... expropriated.
“I want to see my boys on this farm, helping their grandpa and uncle the same as my dad did long ago—to touch history with their very own hands by working the same soil their sixth great grandfather did.”

Frank’s son, who shares the captain’s name, has worked alongside his father, milking cows and planting cash crops, since he was 13. “It is not a job but a way of life,” John Meyers said, reading from his own prepared statement. “Farmers are not taught in school. They do not come from the city. Farmers come from farm families. Expropriating this property will end the farm in this family. The heritage and pride that comes from running this farm will fade away.”
http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/a-farmers-final-stand/


----------



## jebatty (Apr 30, 2016)

Since the title of this thread is "Greening Ontario electricity," and the discussion has turned a bit into landscape impacts, I'm not sure which of these is the worst of two evils from a "green" perspective" 1) breaking up large tracts of ag land for exurb lots or 2) large tract industrial ag land which thrives on chemical fertilizers, herbicides, fungicides, and pesticides to grow GMO food. Both end up with a near biological desert that is nearly devoid of wildlife, habitat, and protection of water and soil resources. I suppose they both are "green" because they look green, but it seems they both are environmental disasters.


----------



## Lake Girl (Apr 30, 2016)

With 6 million in the Greater Toronto Area, is it surprising there is urban sprawl?  Toronto is the 4th largest city in North America... NYC, LA, Mexico City and Toronto.  The Golden Horseshoe is even worse ... 8,759,312 as of 2011.

Edit:  Ontario is still the province with the most farms...


----------



## Pat32rf (May 6, 2016)

By the time you add delivery charges, taxes. and all the little things that Ontario Hydro pays for, my hydro rate is about $.21/kwh. This from a company that pays people eighty cents per kwh to produce solar energy, and guarantees that rate for 20 years. We also sell our hydro out of province for less than half of what they charge me per kwh and build windmills that are often standing still during the peak hours. 
We fired the CEO of hydro One a few years back but are now paying her over $1000/DAY, seven days/ week, for the rest of her life (she went to court over this and won)


----------



## Highbeam (May 9, 2016)

Pat32rf said:


> We fired the CEO of hydro One a few years back but are now paying her over $1000/DAY, seven days/ week, for the rest of her life (she went to court over this and won)



Man, that's a golden parachute I'd like to have. I believe that is better than we pay our senators. We are talking Canadian dollars though.


----------



## Lake Girl (May 17, 2016)

LowbanksArcher ... take a look at this chart and be aware of windmill potential hazards.  Ice projectiles are disconcerting with proximity to farm...
http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/fullaccidents.pdf


----------

