Comments on: Ontario “tweak” of solar feed-in-tariff could undermine renewables program http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2010/07/20/ontario-tweak-of-solar-feed-in-tariff-could-undermine-renewables-program/ Trends, happenings and innovations in the clean technology market Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:28:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: King Salmon http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2010/07/20/ontario-tweak-of-solar-feed-in-tariff-could-undermine-renewables-program/comment-page-1/#comment-13243 King Salmon Thu, 29 Jul 2010 01:32:00 +0000 http://www.cleanbreak.ca/?p=2508#comment-13243 We're not moving forward fast enough with these renewable energy policies. It's been 30 years of a lot of megawords but not a lot of megawatts. Greenhouse gas emissions have to be stabilized by 2015 (Take a look at http://www.global-warming-forecasts.com/2015-climate-change-global-warming-2015.php ) Our scientists are so worried about being tagged as "alarmists" that they end up underestimating impact timelines again and again. Look at their Arctic melt forecasts. First they told us 2070 (http://www.global-warming-forecasts.com/arctic-ice-free-arctic-climate-change.php ). Now they say any day now. Yikes. King We’re not moving forward fast enough with these renewable energy policies. It’s been 30 years of a lot of megawords but not a lot of megawatts. Greenhouse gas emissions have to be stabilized by 2015 (Take a look at http://www.global-warming-forecasts.com/2015-climate-change-global-warming-2015.php ) Our scientists are so worried about being tagged as “alarmists” that they end up underestimating impact timelines again and again. Look at their Arctic melt forecasts. First they told us 2070 (http://www.global-warming-forecasts.com/arctic-ice-free-arctic-climate-change.php ). Now they say any day now. Yikes.
King

]]> By: Mike http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2010/07/20/ontario-tweak-of-solar-feed-in-tariff-could-undermine-renewables-program/comment-page-1/#comment-13133 Mike Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:10:28 +0000 http://www.cleanbreak.ca/?p=2508#comment-13133 Tyler, I have been reading much about the “outrage” over the lowering of the price paid for ground-mounted and am disappointed. It is all very self-servicing. This is very similar to complaints I heard when the OPA initially excluded ground-mounted from the high microFIT price tranche last year. At the time, homeowners apparently complained that they couldn’t place a project on their roof because of shading and other issues. Well, if you look at the 12,800 ground-mounted applications now, how many are from home owners? Many of the applicants are third-party lessors of land, much of it multiple leases from the same owner. The land is mostly rural, agricultural-based. This is NOT environmentally optimal. There is little demand for electricity in rural areas and many of the property owners have no interest in solar - only in collecting lease fees. In fact, most of the third party people signing up the land have no interest in developing solar projects. Instead, they are looking to sell the contracts to equipment and service providers to build and maintain the solar installations. All of this is not aligned with the spirit of the Green Energy Act. If we want solar for the sake of solar, the right way to do this is to build large solar farms on non-agricultural land located near population centres. That way we realize cost efficiencies and produce the electricity where it’s needed. We if want to spread the economic benefits, make these large projects Community Power projects and sell the shares through a renewable energy co-operative. As for those who took the risk and installed ground mounted before getting a contract, they are still getting a hefty premium – 58.8 cents/kWh is still many times the price we pay for electricity at the home. And the environmental benefits are still there aren't they – isn't it all about the environment anyways? Tyler, I have been reading much about the “outrage” over the lowering of the price paid for ground-mounted and am disappointed. It is all very self-servicing. This is very similar to complaints I heard when the OPA initially excluded ground-mounted from the high microFIT price tranche last year. At the time, homeowners apparently complained that they couldn’t place a project on their roof because of shading and other issues.

Well, if you look at the 12,800 ground-mounted applications now, how many are from home owners? Many of the applicants are third-party lessors of land, much of it multiple leases from the same owner. The land is mostly rural, agricultural-based. This is NOT environmentally optimal. There is little demand for electricity in rural areas and many of the property owners have no interest in solar – only in collecting lease fees.

In fact, most of the third party people signing up the land have no interest in developing solar projects. Instead, they are looking to sell the contracts to equipment and service providers to build and maintain the solar installations. All of this is not aligned with the
spirit of the Green Energy Act.

If we want solar for the sake of solar, the right way to do this is to build large solar farms on non-agricultural land located near population centres. That way we realize cost efficiencies and produce the electricity where it’s needed. We if want to spread the economic benefits, make these large projects Community Power projects and sell the shares through a renewable energy co-operative.

As for those who took the risk and installed ground mounted before getting a contract, they are still getting a hefty premium – 58.8 cents/kWh is still many times the price we pay for electricity at the home. And the environmental benefits are still there aren’t they – isn’t it all about the environment anyways?

]]>