Record cheap electricity is transforming world energy markets as Canada struggles to

Commodity Marketing

Tools

Record cheap electricity is transforming world energy markets as Canada struggles to

Nov 27, 2017 | 08:48 1 Record cheap electricity is transforming world energy markets as Canada struggles to keep up: Don Pittis
Radically new Alberta auction system will play a part in disrupting the global energy market

By Don Pittis, CBC News Posted: Nov 27, 2017 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: Nov 27, 2017 5:00 AM ET

The Italian company ENEL has signed a bid to make solar power at 1.7 cents per kilowatt hour, a new record low that experts say will allow it to easily compete with fossil fuel plants even with the added cost of battery storage.

A new world record price for electricity set earlier this month signals a radical disruption in global energy markets — and Canada, whose economy was once powered by some of the world's cheapest electricity, will not escape the effects.

The new price, described by the news site Electrek as the cheapest electricity on the planet, was less than 2 cents per kilowatt hour, "part of a pattern marching to 1 cent per kWh bids that are coming in 2019 (or sooner)," the site declared.

The record was not set in a place where energy is traditionally cheap. Nor is it from a traditional electricity source.

The new low price of 1.7 cents per kilowatt was part of a contract between the Italian multinational ENEL Green Power and the Mexican government agency that administers the country's electricity wholesale market.

It was just one of a series of low bids, including from Canadian Solar — the company founded by former Ontario Hydro engineer Shawn Qu — to make electricity from sunlight.
CANADA/

For the first time in Canada, Alberta will shortly announce the results of competitive bidding system expected to push electricity prices much lower. (Todd Korol/Reuters)

But the fact the power will come from solar is only one part of a series of profound changes, including mass battery storage, that is in the process of shaking up the world energy market.

As as has so often been the case in the past, Alberta is on the leading edge of an energy experiment that is turning global — and Canadian — markets upside down.

Within weeks, the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO), which manages and operates the province's power grid, is expected to announce the results of a bidding process to create "5,000 MW of renewable electricity generation capacity connected to the Alberta grid between now and 2030."
Pushing prices down

The power will come from wind, not solar, and the prices will be more than double the record prices set in Mexico. But for the first time in Canada, the Alberta agency will use the same market auction system for creating green power that has helped push electricity prices down in Mexico and other places around the world.

Some experts say the prices set in the Alberta bidding process could be as low as 5 cents per kilowatt hour. That's in the same range as the gold standard combined cycle natural gas power plan and just the beginning of a process that will use market forces to stimulate new efficiencies in Canada's electricity market as technology improves.

Cost overruns at two Canadian hydroelectric stations now under construction, B.C's controversial Site C and Newfoundland's expensive Muskrat Falls, have drawn attention to an electricity system in transition.
Muskrat Falls Fears 20170716

Costly construction costs at power plants like Muskrat Falls in Labrador may lead to a disruption in the industry in the face of lower-cost wind or solar power. (Andrew Vaughan/The Canadian Press)

Electricity pricing in most of the world remains complicated, but (allowing for my inevitable mistakes of over-simplification) the principles are not.

No end user, even in Mexico or Chile where prices have hit record lows, gets to buy electricity for less than 2 cents per kilowatt hour. Nor will Albertans pay the lowest prices resulting from the new bidding process.

Instead, each new tranche of low-cost power is mixed into the basket of previously contracted electricity to make a composite price. Then, you at home pay that price, plus transmission fees and various other things tacked on to your bill.
Disruptive pricing

As market bidding structures expand beyond Alberta, the low bid prices will be crucial — and disruptive — for companies making the electricity.

"What you're starting to see is a willingness or at least desire in Ontario to switch to a more market-based system," says Sarah Petrevan, Ontario electricity specialist with Vancouver based Clean Energy Canada.

Under the provincially owned and operated Ontario Hydro, low cost was often set aside in favour of other goals. For example, Petrevan says, when one includes start-up and decommissioning costs, nuclear power would be impossible to justify on a market-competitive basis.

A recent report declared that B.C.'s Site C would not be cheaper than greener alternatives except for the $2 billion kill fee required to stop the project.

The high cost of safe construction and decomissioning could make nuclear power uncompetetive as the price for electricity goes to competitive bidding. (John Flesher/The Associated Press)

Even Ontario's recent push toward green energy was not based on the lowest cost. Rather, it was an attempt to create a wind and solar industry during an industrial recession by offering high-priced long-term contracts.

In its first contracts, Ontario was offering 80 cents per kWh, a price high enough to make the University of Calgary's Blake Shaffer briefly consider coming to the province to get a piece of the action.

Shaffer cut his teeth in electricity trading when BC Hydro started doing it in 1999, just before the California energy crisis. After seven years in B.C., Shaffer left to set up the electricity trading desk at Lehman Brothers, and then Barclays in New York.

Now finishing a doctorate, he has a ringside seat to Alberta's new green power bidding system.

"I'm very curious to see what the price is in that auction," he says.
Out-competing coal and gas

Shaffer says that in order to be effective in an integrated power network with backup systems like gas and hydro, intermittent power sources like wind only have to fall below the price of the of the cheapest alternative. Carbon pricing gives wind an even greater advantage over gas.

But with Mexico's under-two-cent power, even without the effects of carbon pricing, the argument from the fossil fuel industry that green power cannot stand alone no longer holds water.

"It seems like at these prices, and that's what's really amazing about how low we're getting in solar, is that, yeah, it can compete, even though battery technology is expensive these days," says Shaffer. "You can out-compete coal and natural gas at these levels."

Follow Don on Twitter @don_pittis

More analysis from Don Pittis Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2017 | 08:56 2 Yup another company monopolising the power grid through corruption all the while with again government subsidies. Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2017 | 09:14 3 Even as cost to produce electricity continues to fall sadly the consumer will keep paying more. Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2017 | 09:34 4 Chuck2 read this article this morning. Couple of quick thoughts. Don implies that this 1.7 cents a kilowatt is with battery back up, at 1.7 cents I can assure you it is not. In Ontario as he points out the cost of electricity will continue to rise putting more jobs at risk. In Alberta the government is asking for bids on wind power, if solar is so great why are they using wind? Also much cheaper wages in Mexico to install the solar than in Canada. Also with present technology batteries are 35 to 50 percent of the cost of the system and have to be replaced every 5-10 years. Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2017 | 09:40 5 The takeaway from chucks article is enel has to be getting their panels for less than 75$ us. We are still around250$US. Most in industries say they won't drop below price we are at now, they will just get more productive. 10 cents a kw hour takes 15 years to pay off right now. Reply With Quote
blackpowder's Avatar Nov 27, 2017 | 09:56 6 I'd like the author to pay my power bills for the next 20 years.
The add ons after power is where the knife is. We are paying power companies to phase out of coal. Shut down mines. Convert to gas.
Thats the only reason my bill has doubled since this started and its set to double again. The big high line recently pushed south? Put on our tab. Last penny profit ultimately Buffets.
Will we really be competitive in 20 years? Or will we have no new tech. Some wore out infrastructure. Wealthy lawyers and ex politicians.
And nothing to generate wealth with. Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2017 | 10:11 7
Quote Originally Posted by blackpowder View Post
....................
And nothing to generate wealth with.
Well, it all depends on where you live!

Because just this morning I read in a local farm paper that a large greenhouse company is building an additional 12 acres of greenhouse here in Ontario because Ontario Hydro cut them a special deal on electricity cost.

It all sounds wonderful until I read further down where it says that the same company is adding another 60 acres of greenhouses to its already huge greenhouse base in Ohio because electricity is so much cheaper down there.

So yes, our electricity scheme is most certainly generating wealth, just not at home where the subsidy dollars - TAKEN FROM MY TAX DOLLARS - went to set up this "GREEN ENERGY".

Between our brain-dead, libtard leadership and a U.S. president who has determined to move his country's interests forward, it's a good time to be an American. Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2017 | 10:14 8 Further to the energy balance here in Ontario, I was recently told - by someone directly involved in the process - of a company which is setting up a significant grains processing plant that Ontario Hydro (or whatever it's now called) is PAYING them 6 cents/kwh for any electricity that they use on weekends. Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2017 | 10:32 9
Quote Originally Posted by burnt View Post
Further to the energy balance here in Ontario, I was recently told - by someone directly involved in the process - of a company which is setting up a significant grains processing plant that Ontario Hydro (or whatever it's now called) is PAYING them 6 cents/kwh for any electricity that they use on weekends.
looks like that will be the start of the 2 day work week Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2017 | 10:34 10 chuckChuck
That was an interesting piece, but in my mind it raises a large number of questions. One is how on earth can the 1.7 cent bid be so much cheaper than anyone else....new technology?? Secondly there is still the huge problem of the practical percentage of power on any grid that can be solar and wind. In most areas there is not perpetual sunlight and or wind. I remember reading a northern European country's grid allowing only a very low percentage, something like 15% wind power because you need an alternate for backup. And as far as battery backup is concerned, even though technology has made great advances in batteries, they are expensive, require a great deal of energy and some exotic materials to build, and don't last terrifically long. Really I wonder when you add up all the costs and materials in wind turbines and solar panels and batteries and all the energy and pollution in their construction and disposal how you could possibly be ahead of a hydro electric plant. The hydro electric dam has a life span at least 4 times as long as turbines and solar panels. Is it possible that this is a subsidy driven frenzy that like many other well intentioned actions does not consider the entire equation.
I would be really interested in what the practical percentage of renewable power would be on a western Canadian grid and at what percent failure rate. I realize that the grids are all interconnected but there is a practical limit to transfer distances too. Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2017 | 11:40 11 The takeaway from the article is the price of renewables are dropping fast and they are winning competitive auctions in the open market place over many other forms of generation. Battery storage will add additional costs but that will likely drop as well.

Ontario paid a lot for renewables in the beginning to build an industry. But I don't think Ontario is a model for the current world. Canada has import tariffs to support solar and wind manufacturing jobs. Maybe we don't need the tarrifs now. But Trump is fully prepared to use protectionist measures for American jobs. Why not Canada?

New coal is dead in Canada. Natural gas retrofits as an interim measure are cheaper and cleaner. I doubt Trump can overcome the economic disadvantage new coal has.

Consumer electrical rates are still going to move higher with or without renewables as distribution costs are still large. Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2017 | 12:00 12 I guess the money will be made in battery components and minerals. Storing energy is the 64 million dollar question. I suspect man needs a problem if he hasn't already got enough of them. Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2017 | 14:34 13 Meanwhile here in South Aust were the best at something.....we have a 50% renewable energy target.
South Australia will bring temporary back-up power generators online to prevent blackouts this summer but irony is at peak usage and if needed 80,000l diesel a hour.

Name:  23519071_1245350185608531_142520728778676157_n.jpg
Views: 444
Size:  53.8 KB Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2017 | 14:46 14 If you were a bussiness man and could produce electricity at say 2cents per kw/h when the going price is say 30 cents why would you, wouldnt you think they would make more profit and perhaps charge say 15 cents or more, just asking Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2017 | 14:53 15
Quote Originally Posted by malleefarmer View Post
If you were a bussiness man and could produce electricity at say 2cents per kw/h when the going price is say 30 cents why would you, wouldnt you think they would make more profit and perhaps charge say 15 cents or more, just asking

Exactly, maybe I would do it to get all the free government money up-front, then come the hic-cups. Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2017 | 16:09 16
Quote Originally Posted by sumdumguy View Post
Exactly, maybe I would do it to get all the free government money up-front, then come the hic-cups.
Exactly what I was thinking. If it sounds too good to be true. No different than Tesla pouring through billions of other people’s money pushing off release dates of tangible products because of problems. Eventually the truth gets out but at who’s expense. I understand this tech is in its infancy and eventually will prove reliable and practical. However, now it is not and pushing it on consumers will come with many unintended consequences. Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2017 | 16:58 17 https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/oct/15/australias-household-power-prices-rose-63-in-past-decade-says-watchdog
Australia's household power prices rose 63% in past decade, says watchdog

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission says lack of competition is behind ‘severe electricity affordability problem’

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission report said higher network costs were responsible for 48% of household electricity bills. Photograph: Joe Castro/AAP


Katharine Murphy Political editor
@murpharoo

Sunday 15 October 2017 18.00 BST
Last modified on Monday 16 October 2017 02.46 BST

Residential electricity prices have increased by 63% on top of inflation over the past decade, according to Australia’s competition watchdog, mainly due to higher network costs, which comprise 48% of a household bill.

An interim snapshot, to be released by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission on Monday ahead of the expected unveiling of the Turnbull government’s new energy policy this week, found there was a “severe electricity affordability problem across the national electricity market, and the price increases over the past 10 years are putting Australian businesses and consumers under unacceptable pressure”.

It noted that “large increases in electricity prices have not been matched by price increases in other areas of the economy, nor in wage growth” and it said the burden of higher electricity prices “disproportionally affects those segments of society least able to afford it”.

The report pointed to the 63% increase over the past 10 years, and it broke down the components of a residential power bill of $1,524.

It said 48% of that bill was network costs, 22% wholesale costs, 16% retail and other costs, and 8% retail margins. Green schemes, which have been the focus of most public attention in recent times, made up only 7%.

In an effort to identify the underlying factors driving increases in power prices, the ACCC pointed predominantly to a lack of competition, with the power-generation market highly concentrated, and with substantial levels of vertical integration between generation and retailing.

It said the big power generators – AGL, Origin and EnergyAustralia – continued to hold large retail market shares in most regions, and control in excess of 60% of generation capacity in New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria “making it difficult for smaller retailers to compete”.

It said the current lack of competition in the market raises “real concerns”, because the national electricity market was predicated on competitive markets.
Sign up for Guardian Today Australian edition: the stories you need to read, in one handy email
Read more

It said electricity network operators had been able to overinvest in poles and wires as a result of the suboptimal network regulation framework, and that behaviour would continue to burden consumers “for decades to come”.

While pointing the finger squarely at anti-competitive market behaviour by power companies as the principle driver of higher power prices, the ACCC also noted there was uncertainty in Australia’s electricity sector, with a trend of “insufficient investment”.

The competition watchdog noted that ageing coal assets leaving the system were not being replaced by sufficient new capacity.

It said 5,000 MW of generation capacity had left the national electricity market in the last five years. An additional 2,000 MW had come on stream, with 92% of that renewable generation – leaving a net decline in capacity of more than 3000 MW.

Prior to 2016–17, all regions in the national electricity market had a surplus of electricity generation capacity, but the supply/demand balance had shifted because of reduction in generation capacity, with old coal plants leaving the system, and an uptick in demand.
Advertisement

Australia’s energy sector and many business groups argue that policy uncertainty caused by a decade of toxic political debate on climate and energy policy is one of the factors driving up power prices, because the lack of settled policy makes it difficult to make future investment decisions.

While the ACCC pointed the finger back at the anti-competitive market behaviour of generators and retailers currently making the complaints about the destructive impact of policy uncertainty, it does accept some of the uncertainty argument.

It noted the Turnbull government’s as-yet unresolved position on the clean energy target recommended by the chief scientist Alan Finkel. The ACCC also pointed to the fact the Australian Energy Market Operator had reported power generation proposals comprising 23,000 MW “which suggests additional capacity is ready to be developed given the right conditions”.

The report found that Queenslanders would be paying the most for their electricity this year, followed by South Australians and people living in NSW, while Victorians would have the lowest electricity bills.

On the power price impact of green schemes, the ACCC noted that subsidies aimed at achieving sustainability objectives “have also increased costs and created cross-subsidies”.

It noted that the costs of policies like the feed-in tariffs adopted by some states for solar photovoltaics have been “passed through to all electricity users.”

“Some measures to improve environmental sustainability have been overly generous and poorly targeted, with outcomes that appear inequitable, the report said.

The ACCC chairman, Rod Sims, said ahead of the release of Monday’s report there was currently to much “ill-informed commentary about the drivers of Australia’s electricity affordability problem”.

Sims warned there was no prospect of governments being able to land on a fix unless there was a clear understanding of the underlying issues.

The treasurer, Scott Morrison, said a final report from the ACCC, expected in coming months, would help to “further drive action from the Turnbull government in order to secure more affordable and reliable energy for Australian households and businesses”.
Analysis 'All eyes on the high court': why the Coalition is preparing for the worst
After three days of hearings, confidence is waning that government MPs will survive the challenge to their election
Read more

“Ensuring we keep the lights on and that the prices Australian families pay for energy are affordable is central to the Turnbull government’s approach to energy policy.”

The government is expected to put its new energy policy to cabinet and the Coalition party room this week, after spending the past few weeks playing down expectations it will adopt the clean energy target modelled in the Finkel review.

The clean energy target has been opposed from the outset by Tony Abbott and a small group of conservatives within the Coalition party room, including the Nationals MP George Christensen, who has said several times he won’t vote for it.

The government’s policy is expected to include comprehensively overhauling the national electricity market rules to ensure more dispatachable energy is made available to the market to make the system more reliable, and it is also understood to include measures to lower greenhouse gas emissions.

Labor warned the government on Sunday not to ditch Finkel’s clean energy target. The shadow climate change minister, Mark Butler, said the loss of the clean energy target meant there was little prospect of bipartisan agreement on energy policy between the major parties.

Butler declared if the prime minister dumped the clean energy target, “then he won’t get the support of the Labor party”. Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2017 | 17:04 18 Mallee the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission said in the above article that "green schemes" were only responsible for 7% of the cost of electricity in Australia. The biggest cost they say is "lack of competition and substantial levels of vertical integration between generation and retailing".

It looks like your biggest problem is excess profit taking and bad planning.

They also mention all the instability caused by politics and changing plans.

Whats your take? Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2017 | 18:38 19
Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post

Whats your take?
My take is this Chuck2 if solar and batteries are so cheap and transmission costs are what make my electricity so expensive why would it take $150000 to build a stand alone solar system with batteries so I could go off grid when I pay $3800 per year for power now? Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2017 | 18:40 20 One other thought you constantly talk about Germany and what a green energy success story it is and it is the third most expensive for power on Maillie's graph!!!! Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2017 | 18:44 21
Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
Mallee the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission said in the above article that "green schemes" were only responsible for 7% of the cost of electricity in Australia. The biggest cost they say is "lack of competition and substantial levels of vertical integration between generation and retailing".

It looks like your biggest problem is excess profit taking and bad planning.

They also mention all the instability caused by politics and changing plans.

Whats your take?
Bit of everything chuck as per the graph i put up we have most expensive power in the world in SA.
We have abundance of coal and uranium.
We have a abundance of sunshine.
We have abundance of wind surely somehow with combination of all we can get reliable cheaper power but doubt it. Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2017 | 19:23 22 You really lead a sheltered life Chucky.
You need to go to the source to find out the REAL story on some of these things.

Here let me help you.

http://joannenova.com.au/

Her amusing writings will set you straight about what has really happened in Australia's green energy world.
And why Mallee's graph shows their outrageous electrical prices.

I really liked her story on the fact that the Aussy BOM (Bureau of Meteorology) installed new smart meters in their weather stations.
Sharp eyed weather people recently noticed that an actual low temp readings they saw themselves were not showing up in the official data sheets.
Turns out that these smart meters were apparently set to round temps up.

And the BOM has been using these meters for over 10 YEARS. Now that's man-made global warming.

Outraged people are demanding answers and an audit of the BOM but the crooked buggers have so far refused to do it.

Enjoy Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2017 | 21:45 23
Quote Originally Posted by RWT101 View Post
You really lead a sheltered life Chucky.
You need to go to the source to find out the REAL story on some of these things.

Here let me help you.

http://joannenova.com.au/

Her amusing writings will set you straight about what has really happened in Australia's green energy world.
And why Mallee's graph shows their outrageous electrical prices.

I really liked her story on the fact that the Aussy BOM (Bureau of Meteorology) installed new smart meters in their weather stations.
Sharp eyed weather people recently noticed that an actual low temp readings they saw themselves were not showing up in the official data sheets.
Turns out that these smart meters were apparently set to round temps up.

And the BOM has been using these meters for over 10 YEARS. Now that's man-made global warming.

Outraged people are demanding answers and an audit of the BOM but the crooked buggers have so far refused to do it.

Enjoy

That just backs up the fact that their, "global warming" is computer generated. These "scientists" should be lined up. Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2017 | 07:34 24 Really, 1.7 cents. It does not take a lot of number crunching to realize that no new, stand-alone electrical generation will be started up at that price, let alone be profitable. And as was mentioned, come with battery backup? Hmmm...

Also, where is the cost of back up supply included? For every KW of "renewable" energy, there must be 100% back up available. Or more batteries...

To try to say otherwise is merely more denial of easily available data, mathematics/facts.

Something is rotten in the State of Denmark. Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2017 | 10:16 25
Quote Originally Posted by malleefarmer View Post
Bit of everything chuck as per the graph i put up we have most expensive power in the world in SA.
We have abundance of coal and uranium.
We have a abundance of sunshine.
We have abundance of wind surely somehow with combination of all we can get reliable cheaper power but doubt it.
Looks like your high prices have more to do with lack of competition and little to do with green power. I know most of the geniuses on this site will blame green power no matter what the facts are but the reality is green power is becoming a cheaper and better option. We will still need base loads from other sources but if battery technology improves and becomes cheaper, solar will become a much bigger source of generation. Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2017 | 10:21 26
Quote Originally Posted by Hamloc View Post
My take is this Chuck2 if solar and batteries are so cheap and transmission costs are what make my electricity so expensive why would it take $150000 to build a stand alone solar system with batteries so I could go off grid when I pay $3800 per year for power now?
Costs for panels are substantially higher in canada because of import tarrifs to protect Canadian manufacturers. You are also comparing utility sized installations with smaller installations so the costs per kw go up. Batteries are currently expensive and a much better option is grid tied where no batteries are needed. Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2017 | 10:32 27
Quote Originally Posted by burnt View Post
Really, 1.7 cents. It does not take a lot of number crunching to realize that no new, stand-alone electrical generation will be started up at that price, let alone be profitable. And as was mentioned, come with battery backup? Hmmm...

Also, where is the cost of back up supply included? For every KW of "renewable" energy, there must be 100% back up available. Or more batteries...

To try to say otherwise is merely more denial of easily available data, mathematics/facts.

Something is rotten in the State of Denmark.
So why are you making the assumption that 1.7 cents per kwh generation costs from solar is not profitable if it can be sold for say 10 cents? Are you opposed to finding cheaper sources of electricity generation? Are you opposed to profit? What's your point?

Backup is required and already exists. In Mexico with its sunny warm climate electricity usage peaks during the work day when typically the sun is shining. On cloudy days the existing system will have to put out more generation. Solar is one option for building new capacity at a low cost. There may be a limit to how much solar can be relied on, but if battery technology is improved then the sky may be the limit especially in developing countries. Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2017 | 20:57 28 The people in power of real wealth are playing on the emotional weakness of their electorate . It’s our fault the climate is collapsing next year , the oceans are going to swallow up all coastal cities, the extreme weather hurricanes are going to wipe us all out blah , blah blah ..... to pay for what ? ??? They can’t get any more money out of the 2 billion people that have no money at all so let’s play a guilt trip on every one else and take all their wealth .... it’s a play to secure their future..... not yours . Those that are hard core on this climate change scam have been hypnotized completely.
It’s no different than those that fall into a cult belief for someone else’s benefit. Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2017 | 21:05 29
Quote Originally Posted by furrowtickler View Post
The people in power of real wealth are playing on the emotional weakness of their electorate . It’s our fault the climate is collapsing next year , the oceans are going to swallow up all coastal cities, the extreme weather hurricanes are going to wipe us all out blah , blah blah ..... to pay for what ? ??? They can’t get any more money out of the 2 billion people that have no money at all so let’s play a guilt trip on every one else and take all their wealth .... it’s a play to secure their future..... not yours . Those that are hard core on this climate change scam have been hypnotized completely.
It’s no different than those that fall into a cult belief for someone else’s benefit.
Those that are naive are called naifs. Reply With Quote
Nov 28, 2017 | 21:15 30
Quote Originally Posted by chuckChuck View Post
Costs for panels are substantially higher in canada because of import tarrifs to protect Canadian manufacturers. You are also comparing utility sized installations with smaller installations so the costs per kw go up. Batteries are currently expensive and a much better option is grid tied where no batteries are needed.
So, when you quote cheap prices for solar it can't happen here because of tariffs on solar panels to protect Canadian producers. So your consistent preaching of the price of solar coming down isn't going to happen in Canada. As for a grid tie yes it is much cheaper without batteries but roughly 65% of my electricity bill is transmission and administrative charges not power consumption. Reply With Quote