Via Powerline;
[T]wenty-nine states (and the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) have required utility companies to deliver specified minimum amounts of electricity from “renewable” sources, including wind and solar power. California recently adopted the most stringent of these so-called renewable portfolio standards (RPS), requiring 33 percent of its electricity to be renewable by 2020. […]
In 2010, the average price of residential electricity in RPS states was 31.9 percent higher than it was in non-RPS states. Commercial electricity rates were 27.4 percent higher, and industrial rates were 30.7 percent higher.
Forward this to your own provincial MLA. Let them know we're watching them - and their ridiculous, wasteful political eye candy projects.
But consumers who have less money for groceries and gasoline because they are spending more on electricity tend to blame the power companies, not the government. That is why politicians love mandates.
Not when they're "Crown Corporations", they don't.
Related - Only global poverty can save the planet...
we don't need fans in Alberta, our power bill is already 33% higher than every where else courtesy of Ralph, Ed & Ally-Mae.
What bugs me most about these "projects" is the way they word the output piece. This project "can produce enough energy to power 66,000 homes" but then closely guard actual figures on how much they did produce on an annual basis. Such information would let the proles figure the actual cost of this power, and the monumental stupdity only government types can justify for no tangible results.
Can't pick just one Heinlein quote to go with this...
Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as "bad luck."
or
One can judge from experiment, or one can blindly accept authority. To the scientific mind, experimental proof is all important and theory is merely a convenience in description, to be junked when it no longer fits. To the academic mind, authority is everything and facts are junked when they do not fit theory laid down by authority.
or
If it can't be expressed in figures, it is not science; it is opinion. It has long been known that one horse can run faster than another — but which one? Differences are crucial.
Here in Ontariario....the stated price of electricity is about 6.2c/per kilowatt (off peak) and over 10.8c/kw (on peak).
Problem is with my 1/onP, 1/MidP and 8/offP perday...my monthly bill is in reality over 30c/kw....$/kw....an that's after weasely McSquinty's 10% rebate......
That means it costs 50-60c to take a bath....unless I heat water on the wood stove.
Then we hear that water at Queenston is wasted (2c/kw) when the stupid wind blows...or they export the surplus juice at a loss and then buy juice from Quebec when the wind don't blow....
Nah we don't need no stupid giant fans....
Then the GTA goes NBY on a NG generator when NG is cheaper than coal...
And hydro is not considered a renewable power resource??? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!
The GTA should be made it's own stupid province.
And they can keep their garbage!
Wind power is good PR for politicians and that is about it. It is not a co-incidence that the locations of SaskPower's wind farms are along the Trans-Canada highway, IMO. The only saving grace for Sask is that, unlike Ontario, our government has been satisfied with sticking to its PR value. They have not signed any Samsung-like contracts or legislated a disastrous Green Energy Act. Personally, I thing the Smart Meter, with time of use charges, will have a bigger impact on homeowners.
The research into smaller nuclear reactor for medical purposes is the better investment.
"The Saskatchewan government will be spending $5 million over five years, working with Hitachi Ltd. on nuclear research — including some design work on a small nuclear reactor...In addition to reactor design, the work will involve nuclear medicine, materials science and nuclear safety."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/story/2011/08/25/sk-nuclear-research-1108.html
In the medium term I think that NG will be king. Saskatoon's old coal unit was re-built years ago to burn NG and uses combined cycle technology which makes it more efficient.
One more egregious factiod: Here in Ecotopia (Oregon, Washington, etc.) hydro power is cheap, clean, efficient, and above all, renewable. It would easily surpass any RPF mandate as-is, without building anything.
Therefore, of course IT WAS SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED from qualifying as "renewable" for this purpose.
Total madness.
"Only global poverty can save the planet...".
The WWF and their related socialist organizations are becoming more extreme with every passing year. They are determined to take us back to the caveman days one way or another.
The Cultural Marxists won't be satisfied until they've broken the West. But then after they're finished, you can bet that they will discard all these useful idiots...the enviro-kooks and OWS Reobspierre-wannabees and the sexual-deviance hucksters and the race-baiters.
Don't be a pessimist: Wind power is mighty green!
QUI BONO?
QUI BONO?
Occam: For GE and Seimens of course! And for other friends of those promoting these wind turbines! Don't you feel greener knowing you have to pay for this nonsense? I know I am getting green about the gills every time I think of it.
"Electricity rates must necessarily skyrocket." - BHO
North America and Europe have been able to afford this massive stupidity up until now. As economic reality hits home, greenies' popularity will be somewhere between pedophiles and jihadis.
The power companies are more or less to blame, as they attempt to appease the green monster.
It is easy to give a breakdown on a power bill of the charges due to gas, nuclear, and filthy green.
Make that bird-kill green.
Large companies are all too willing to play the pussy.
John Lewis, "Large companies are all too willing to play the pussy."
Wasn't Lenin report as having said "The Capitalist will sell us the rope with which we will hang him"?
Oh Kate. The SaskParty MLA's and their mothers all know, when election time comes, you can be depended to carry all their water. That's why they'll ignore you.
Sask party is hiding. I sent email and asked how long they will waist our money on these wind mills. No answer. Now they have blocked my emails. That's our gov. at work for us.
John, what choice do they have? Who owns them? And even if privately owned, who sets their rates?
Please try to get this clear in your mind. Power companies are totally and entirely the captive of government policy.
I was interested by L. C. Bennett's remarks about reactor development. So far as I know, one can buy an advanced reactor
more or less off the shelf from Areva. "Research in Saskatchewan" sounds nice but I don't attach much credence to it.
After all, Canada in 1950 was in the forefront of reactor development. All of that, all of that, was thrown away
by successive governments and an apathetic populace (see also "Avro Arrow").
Canadians, at whatever level, only have confidence in the resource sector, it would seem.
Re cgh: yeah, you have a point, though it depends where you are living. On the Rock it is more a
question of the power and telephone companies wagging the provincial government than vice versa.
This is the movie Atlas Shrugged come true in real life. Anyone who hasn't seen it should do so to better understand what we are dealing with.
Utilities that are forced to raise their rates due to government mandates like this need to go on a finger-pointing awareness campaign to shift the blame back where it belongs. Nothing will change until that happens.
The saddest part? The reason utility companies won't - they'd risk being effectively shut down by high level political retribution (likely through regulation, auditing, licensing, etc. Death by bureaucracy). Politicians couldn't afford not to.
R.I.P., rule of law.
@John Lewis: nuclear power is every bit the subsidy monster that 'alternatives' are. And it's not because of government regulations the subsidies were in place even before the regs.
Hydro power looks good...but it sure kills a lot of people. Lawrence Soloman pointed out that it's the deadliest by far of power sources. And making a damn results in displacing a LOT of land with water.
Coal kills more than any other energy source. All the way from the mine to the toxic pollution it produces.
Small scale nuclear is the most viable energy source, unfortunately too many humans aren't smart enough to use it safely.
John, I remember listening to a discussion about nuclear power in Sask. by a person with more knowledge about it than me. The problem with current technology, according to him, is that existing nuclear power plant designs were too big for our small population/market. Too much of the conventional power stations, coal being the largest, would need to be shuttered. On the flip side, during overhauls and maintenance of the nuclear facility too much power would be shut down, leaving the province short of power.
What Sasquatch said.
What toxic pollution is that North of 60? Modern coal plants have scrubbers and pollution controls and open pit coal mining is as safe as any other North American mining operation. Air and water quality are monitored closely to ensure environmental health. Comparing old coal plants to new ones is like saying all cars are dangerous because old cars did not have seat belts, air bags, etc.or using nuclear safety data based on shoddy operations like Chernobyl.
Only once did a poster provide 'proof' of the negative health effects of North American coal plants and it turned out to be from the 1960's and was never replicated. Coal definitely has an environmental impact and negative characteristics but so does every other energy source.
You don't need the WWF to tell you economic stagnation is what is wanted. From the local paper out here in Cambridge yesterday:
"The recession saved Ontario,” said Grotheer (Cambridge Hydro president and CEO John Grotheer ).
http://www.cambridgetimes.ca/news/local/article/1355039--tough-decisions-face-electricity-sector-conway
Agenda 21 of the UN.
Royalty and serfs... That is the plan.
Coal kills more than any other energy source. All the way from the mine to the toxic pollution it produces.
Stop living in the 1940s.
My god it sounds like a cross between medieval europe, the roman empire, and george orwell's 1984. And nobody seems to care, with the exception of the blogsphere.
The research documenting the health problems of people living downwind of N.American coal plants is easy to find with an open mind. Just don't be too surprised when it disagrees with your preconceived ideas. Mercury poisoning is a serious problem.
http://www.grida.no/graphicslib/detail/mercury-pollution-transport-and-cycle_595d
...and N.America is relatively clean compared with the rest of the world especially Russia and Asia.
Coal fired electricity plants release more radioactivity than nuclear power plants.
Yes... all new plants are supposed to have stack scrubbers and all the currently available emissions technology, however existing plants have been given exemptions and no new plants are being built, so it's been pollution as usual despite all the well meaning regulations.
SMALL SCALE nuclear is quite viable with current technology and Canada is a world leader. There are about two dozen small scale reactors mostly at universities all across Canada. They've been operating for decades without incident. Most people don't even know they exist. We have the technology to safely power communities [on and off-grid] with a reactor that produces all the electricity needed plus heat for some of the buildings and uses about a kilogram of fuel every 20 years. Much safer and more cost effective than building big expensive nuclear power plants.
Ayn Rand was right. It's the Anti-Industrial Revolution.
Peter @ 11:54
What they're reffering to is the nameplate output of the turbines operating at 100%. Fact is they'll operate at about 27-32 % effiency depending where you are. So those 66,00 homes would be getting along with wind providing some power say 29% of the time. The rest has to be made up with other sources that are reliable such as hydro-electric, coal or nuclear. So why have wind then????
Ontario is circling the bowl because of this mess and McGuintys head should be on a stick over this boondoggle.