[Bryan of StA]

Depends on which energy question you are refering to.<br /> <br /> Our transmission grids, our power generation facilities or the amount of available power could all be seperate questions.<br /> <br /> I am not familiar with any "crisis" at the moment, although there are several issues. One is that we have a growing population, a growing consumption per capita per individual, several booming industries when generally one booms while another lags, which all lead to an amount issues. Compound that with contractual obligations for power export, and you get towards a crisis.<br /> <br /> 1. Why don't we build new plants? Because most people practive a NIMBY policy with respect to new projects. <br /> 2. Why don't we upgrade old plants? Because often the grid is at capacity. <br /> 3. Why don't we upgrade the grid? See 1.<br /> <br /> All three issues also face substantial work necessary in terms of land appropriation and environmental impact assessment.<br /> <br /> Those are simplistic arguments, as there are other factors. The building/upgrading of facilities is still possible, but are not quickly accomplished.<br /> <br /> As well, natural gas generating facitilies cannot generate economically viable power with the current prices.<br /> <br /> Another factor could be the end of the design life of current nuclear facilites, as most are of the same era. I am not familiar enough with this topic though to make any insight.

[Marcarc]

That's just crazy. Canada has more 'empty space' than just about any country in the world. Why in heavens name would you put a nuclear reactor, gas terminal, wind power facility or solar grid near somebody's 'backyard'? There are hundreds of thousands of acres available. The 'not in my backyard' argument is thrown around to defend policies that result in high prices. The argument itself is absurd. You can look elsewhere at the thread on New Brunswick- Irving went to St. John council and said they were going to build a gas terminal, not only did they not say 'not in my backyard', they bypassed environmental studies, just as they did for the Belledune waste incinerator, gave Irvings a multi-hundred million dollar tax cut on property tax, and changed the entire province's tax code just to suit them.<br /> <br /> PEI gets almost 5% of its power from wind, a field at the tip of the island about the size of five football fields. In New Brunswick, the government still owns about half the land in the province so can do with it as it sees fit. Currently they are debating building ANOTHER nuclear facility.<br /> <br /> The 'crisis' comes partly in the form of rising oil prices. That means that most canadians will see a sudden increase in the price they pay for food. The other crisis is the massive pollution caused by coal. If we didn't give a rats ass about the environment then there wouldn't be a problem. Canada exports coking coal to the US for steel production (and put our steel producers out of business) while we import dirty coal to burn for power. Ontario is the biggest pig, although Nova Scotia is bad as well. Privatizing means that people pay the actual costs of energy, so that is another 'crisis' since many provinces are looking seriously at that option. Having very little money means most provinces cannot afford energy infrastructure. I think Bernard Lord is hoping by campaigning for Harper that he can get the feds to put some money into the point lepreau nuclear reactor. <br /> <br /> The problem is we simply send all our energy to the US. Canada produces more than plenty, heck, Venezuela has the cheapest gas in the world and we export more to the US than they do. Canada is probably the ONLY country in the world where little of the benefits or oil production are available to its own citizens. Even Alberta's oil prices are only about 5 cents more a litre than Ontario. In Nova Scotia you can live right next to the plant and still pay the highest prices in the country. <br /> <br />

[Dr Caleb]

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc]Canada has more 'empty space' than just about any country in the world. Why in heavens name would you put a nuclear reactor, gas terminal, wind power facility or solar grid near somebody's 'backyard'?<br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Electrical energy is lost to resistance in the transmission wires over the length of the wire. The closer a power generator is to the point where the electricity will be used, the less current is lost. <br /> <br /> If you had a nuke on Baffin island, by the time it got to Toronto, it might light up a flashlight. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'><br />

[Bryan of StA]

Well, in power as in everything, location location location.<br /> <br /> The further a plant is away from the end user of the power, the greater the losses of power due to transmission. Power in does not equal power out, and there are substantial losses over distances. As well, you still need to convey the power and to do that you need power lines, and a transmission trunk line takes up a lot of space and is an eye-sore to most.<br /> <br /> As well, power generating facilities are only feasible in certain locations. Coal-fired <b><i>should</i></b> be near coal, although it may be trained in at a significant cost increase, and the prevailing winds need to be such that emissions avoid populated areas. Coal and nuclear require sizable water sources, generally lakes. Wind power needs to be in places that have a continual wind, and those are generally described as "scenic" and "bird migratory paths." One of the largest industrial killers of birds is wind-farms.<br /> <br /> Current environmental review legislation includes "aesthetics" based arguements, which mean that if you can see the project from anywhere, objections on this principle can be raised.<br /> <br /> Power and oil are seperate commodities (with the exception of involving natural gas generation). Metallurgical coal is drastically different than thermal/power coal. Metallurgical may have a high price, but you cannot burn it for power (at least not easily). Thermal/power coal is set mainly by industrial demand, so power price and other uses (such as concrete, who ofter use thermal coal for making cement) account for a higher price.<br /> <br /> One of the most notable attempts at bypassing environmental impact studies was done by Quebec Hydro in an attempt to build a transmission line for power export, and in the end it took a major lawsuit by interested parties to make them comply with the law. <br /> <br /> So if the government is giving sweetheart deals and not following it's own laws, challange them, either in court or during elections.

[Marcarc]

Tell that to the people in New Brunswick. Hypothetically you can challenge the government in court, in reality I've heard of VERY few successful ones. It took tremendous energy to get Harris to comply with environmental regulations, and of course a government can simply bypass environmental regulations since they are set by the province.<br /> <br /> PEI has wind power on the eastern tip of the island, 300 km from the largest city. There is loss, of course, that doesn't mean you have to locate on top of a city. 300 km from any spot in southern ontario, canada's most populated area, gets you in the boonies, plenty of space. In Toronto you could put windmills out in the water and it would be nobody's backyard.<br /> <br /> The point is, a good proportion of Canada is located next to wilderness, or at least 200km from wilderness. Anyway, the real point is that Canada has TONS of power, that doesn't mean we benefit from it.

[Rural]

One of the souloutions is to reduce the "peak" load, in Ontario there is a move afoot to do so.<br /> <br /> Some months ago I wrote the Minister of energy with several questions regarding the “smart metering” proposal in Ontario. I generally support this move to “save” generating capacity by giving consumers a financial incentive to move their hydro use to times when commercial and industrial operations do not use as much power. I asked whether the prices were going to float with the market and whether time of day pricing was going to be in place. (at that time I could find no definitive answers to those questions on line)I have just recived a reply.<br /> It seems that prices will be “fixed” on a annual basis and the following regime will be in place to be compulsory one year after your smart meter is installed, which may take place any time between now and 2010.<br /> Some test areas have readouts available to the consumer in their home that summarize current and total usage, it is unclear if all meters will have this capability. Pricing details follow, also see www.oeb.gov.on.ca and www.energy.gov.on.ca <br /> <br /> <br /> Current Residential rates and thresholds<br /> As a residential consumer, you will pay 5.0 cents per kWh for the first 1000 kWh you use per month, and 5.8 cents per kWh you use over this threshold. <br /> The price threshold for residential consumers changes twice a year beginning in November 2005. The threshold is 1,000 kWh per month during a winter season (November 1 to April 30) and 600 kWh per month during a summer season (May 1 to October 31). This means consumers will be able to use more hours of electricity at the lower price in the winter when many people need more electricity for light, indoor activities and heating.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Smart meter pricing chart:<br /> Day of the Week Time Time-of-Use Price (cents/kWh)<br /> Weekends & holidays<br /> All day Off-peak 2.9<br /> Summer Weekdays<br /> (May 1st - Oct 31st)<br /> 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. Mid-peak 6.4<br /> 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. On-peak 9.3<br /> 5:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Mid-peak 6.4<br /> 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Off-peak 2.9<br /> Winter Weekdays<br /> (Nov 1st - Apr 30th)<br /> 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. On-peak 9.3<br /> 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Mid-peak 6.4<br /> 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. On-peak 9.3<br /> 8:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Mid-peak 6.4<br /> 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Off-peak 2.9<br /> <br /> <br /> It can be seen from this that once the “smart meters” are in use that those who do not change their usage to “off peak” times as much as possible will be paying a great deal more for hydro. Those who change their usage to do change and are successful in restricting their consumption during peak periods have the potential to see some savings.<br /> This type of pricing was use in Great Britain for electric heating loads in the 60s and works well for systems that heat the concrete floor or other large heat retaining items during the off peak times and turn off and radiate it during the peak times. With a large, well insulated water tank one can do the same for domestic hot water and see considerable savings as this is one of the major users of power in the average household.<br /> It also would seem that there is a gradual move towards allowing “net” metering i.e. the meter runs backwards and credits you for any hydro that YOU generate in excess of your needs and feed back into the grid. We have a ways to go on this, one of the problems being the safety of hydro workers working on a system where they do not have control of the source, however this is now becoming quite common on Great Britian so I must assume that the technical problems are not insurmountable. The initial cost of the householders control system may be cost prohibitive however when added to the (still) high price of line voltage solar or wind power installations.<br /> <br /> Anyway something to think about when planning you new home or renovations or even planning you life!<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />

[Brother Jonathan]

[QUOTE by Rural]</b> It can be seen from this that once the “smart meters” are in use that those who do not change their usage to “off peak” times as much as possible will be paying a great deal more for hydro.<b>[/QUOTE]<br /> <p>For what it’s worth, even that proposed 9.3¢/kW·h on-peak rate is significantly less than my residential “dumb metered” juice.</p><br /> <br /> [QUOTE by Rural]</b> It also would seem that there is a gradual move towards allowing “net” metering …<b>[/QUOTE]<br /> South of the border, Arizona was the first state to implement it (in 1981). We’ve had it here in Vermont since 1998. Regarding the safety issue, it was dealt with here by requiring external, lockable isolation switches on customer-owned power generators.

[Rural]

Thats very interesting in that we (Ontario) buy power from the U.S. (New York for sure, dont know about Vermont) at times of high usage. I wonder what Ontario pays for it? <br /> For the record the prices given are for the price at the generating station, we are charged for delivery, Hydro debt and "regulatory charges" which more than double the "rate" touted by our government and brings the current "dumb" charges up to about 12c KWH.<br /> Another interesting thing about cogeneration and net metering is that various government departments are taking diffrent positions on it. Whilst some are encouraging small private generation, the Federal dept in control of our rivers has issued a directive to Conservation Authorities to remove existing dams and discourage new ones. Private owners have to fight just to retain dams that have been in existance since the 1800s and have been discouraged from refurbishing them to provide power.

[FootPrints]

Thanks for all the information. I still am having a hard time taking in how such a resource rich country can be hurting for anything, let alone carry a debt.<br /> <br /> Obviously, the system is a failure and we end up paying for it.

[Roy_Whyte]

Nuclear as it is now is a dead end. Nuclear fusion on the other hand has enormous upside, but we N.Americans are getting left behind by the Europeans in that regard.<br /> <br /> Simply we in N.America are energy pigs. We turn on the light, and we expect it to work. Most people have little to zero idea where and how their electricity comes from. As peak oil hits home, that will change. With so much of US power coming from natural gas or left-over dirty coal plants, something needs to give. Canada is blessed with hydro power coupled with a small population but even that is starting to show strains. <br /> <br /> Clean burning coal plants are much better than their predecessors, but they themselves are not the perfect solution. America has very large coal reserves still - maybe the largest in the world, but power plants no matter how clean, are very expensive to build and take many years to recoup their investment costs.<br /> <br /> We need to start conserving energy now if we are to forgo pain later.

[Eddisionklein]

It is very bad to see that world's most actively traded costs reduced to bellow $55.The building/upgrading of facilities is still possible, but are not quickly accomplished.As well,natural gas generating facilities cannot generate economically viable power with the current prices.