Lower solar incentive expected to hit industry hard

© AgMedia Inc.

Installer warns of potential layoffs as OPA plans to cut rates on power from small scale solar operators


Good heavens, already. Why can't people figure out that paying 80 cents, or even 60 cents for power that gets sold at retail for less than ten cents, is both poor business, and poor public policy?

Right on. Nuclear is still the ONLY choice. Solar and wind are great if they can compete with nuclear pricewise. At least nuclear is reliable.

If Pythagoras (cira 600BC) developed nuclear energy, we would still be watching over his waste today. Is that the legacy you want to leave.

For those that think $5 a year per family in Ontario is a lot of money maybe they should look at the debt retirement charge on your Hydro bill. This is the cost of going nuclear, How about 5 bucks a month. 60% of my bill was distribution charges, this is so high because of the great losses in bringing the energy from the power plant to your home. It costs the hydro company nothing to bring the power off of my roof or out of my back yard and into my house. The power you use is already subsidized. These subsidies go towards fat paychecks for the people who run the industry and are used to wine and dine the people who are behind the decisions to make sure great programs like the microFIT do not work, it keeps their checks fat. Why pay 10 microFITs a million dollars over 20 years when you can use that money for part of one persons bonuses for a year. Why use clean energy when we can spend billions on storing our nuclear waste. There is nothing wrong with our current technologies as long as we leave the cost of cleaning up after their use to our children. (Smog, tar sands, nuclear waste, They say if a natural gas plant blows up it will take a few blocks with it. Remember they said three mile island couldn't happen. Maybe to save money we can design a couple more reactors just like the Maple reactors that cost us millions and have been shelved by the Harper government.
Just in the almost four months my small 8 module microFIT has been running, My generation has saved 1142 lbs of carbon going into the air. How much would it cost you to remove that carbon out of the air once it has been put there by a coal plant or oil field.


and solar is such a great thing why do you care if it makes money,,just be a good citizen and do it for the good of society...I vote for a couple of new nuclear plants

Some people don't want to listen no matter if the truth is staring
them in the face.

"would have cost each Ontario family $5 to $6 a year for the next 20 years?" When will Robin-hood and his greedy men stop plundering farm family's ... The HST will take far more that 5-6 bucks that could likely get spent on another G8 or G20 type photo op or worse yet another fake lake. No one cared to run after exorbitant pensions or bonuses paid out in the past to OPG/OPA heads or thought that should have been tweaked back!

Come on.... people didn't really expect McGuinty to follow through on a commitment did they?

Anybody but McGuinty in 2011

I would like to know who Duguid has been talking to in the Industry becasue based on all the blogs and postings this comes as a total surprise to everyone. Personally I have been trying to get answers out of the OPA for months and they have just stopped answering the phones. As I understand it the OPA continued to accept applications and yet were not processing them. Why would they do this if they knew they were going to change the rate? People have spent time and money based on the governement's promise. I'm not sure where they got their numbers but the returns on ground mounted systems are not "exhobitant". I am certainly not voting for Liberal in the upcoming election!

The issue isn't really the layoffs, or the gov't follow through - the point is this an example of the "green non-economy" - if the business can only survive if gov't continues to feed it through massive tax $ subsidies, then it deserves to fold.

There is no consumer demand for expensive "alternative" energy, and there is no evidence of any benefit to the environment provided by alternatives.

Expect more news of so-called green jobs disappearing as taxpayers, and subsequently gov'ts realize they cannot afford to support these boondoggles.

...look up the word "Luddite".

Thank God Europe is well ahead of us!

We won't have to make all of the horrendous mistakes they did!

The assumption here is, probably faulty, that our politicians will not be stupid enough to repeat all of the dumb decicisions made in Europe! Am I being overly optimistic????

1. I'd love to know who Duguid spoke with "in the industry" before springing his July 2nd surprise.
2. To those who complain about $0.802/kWh being so high, please reflect on the fact that it is for peak-hour power that requires other conventional power sources to produce and that remain idle at other times. How much is being paid for peak power now?
3. Duguid's quoted ROI is not a businessman's calculation but rather a politician's or editor's calculation. He does not include expenses and costs of inefficiencies of operation of solar PV power systems, e.g., interest on bank loans for capital costs ($6,000/year) to be paid monthly whether covered by power sales or not; maintenance costs (parts and labour)($1,000/year); reduced power during cloudy days (up to $3,000/year); insurance (est'd. $500/year); taxes (est'd. $500/year). Duguid, unfortunately, does not guarantee that the sun will actually shine every day. Locally here in Eastern Ontario we have had 51% of the last 550 days that produced less than 40% of the maximum possible power or an average of less than 20% power for these days. Only 10% of the days produced within 15% of maximum.

Return on Investment, by definition, does not, and can not, include financing costs.

In addition, your concept of "peak power" is somewhat fuzzy - peak power, by definition, is power that can be called on, at a moment's notice. Solar, because it isn't available at night, or when it's overcast, isn't anywhere near peak power, except by fortuitous circumstances. And since solar isn't "reliable", or "peak" power, it shouldn't be getting paid even 58 cents.

Finally, your third point about the historical unreliability of solar power, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, that solar is so unreliable that it shouldn't be getting any sort of premium to produce at all.

Post new comment

To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
We welcome thoughtful comments and ideas. Comments must be on topic. Cheap shots, unsubstantiated allegations, anonymous attacks or negativity directed against people and organizations will not be published. Comments are modified or deleted at the discretion of the editors. If you wish to be identified by name, which will give your opinion far more weight and provide a far greater chance of being published, leave a telephone number so that identity can be confirmed. The number will not be published.