But they’re not — the premise for extracting this stuff seems to be to allow things to keep running as they are for a bit longer into the future.

I have a difficult time with this because I am really tired of the lies and over-the-top rubbish put forth by environmentally-minded people while, at the same time, the “free market will save us all” approach has problems, too. Given a choice between the two, I have to side with the latter because at least these people are creative, progressive, and have an ability to get things done. A lot of the former are just age-old failed communists and anarchists who want to see things smashed and broken.

Of course, accomplishing that will be an incredibly difficult feat, given the entrenched interests involved. As such, it seems far more sensible to protest any new extraction or use of coal and unconventional oil and gas, while simultaneously pushing for legislation that will finally put a price on greenhouse gas emissions, and that will treat the risks associated with climate change appropriately by, among other things, putting a moratorium on coal use.

…And good point, Nick G.

Kawanabe’s statement is annoying though. ““We are definitely conducting research on electric cars, but I can’t say I can wholeheartedly recommend them.” –My response:

Then make a product that works better. Sheesh.

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?

Maybe it was a tentative posture?

I’m guessing most companies have things on the go to hedge their bets, though… and some never see the light of day.

The president of the company has changed.