50444

3.7 cents kwh

Re: 3.7 cents kwh

Postby alanjh595 » Dec 14th, 2017, 6:44 pm

Capture.JPG
User avatar
alanjh595
Übergod
 
Posts: 1652
Likes: 566 posts
Liked in: 1072 posts
Joined: Oct 20th, 2017, 4:18 pm

Re: 3.7 cents kwh

Postby hobbyguy » Dec 14th, 2017, 7:40 pm

maryjane48 wrote:I just did .you need to accept your fantasy a dam suoplys cheaper power is just that a,fantasy .your wish has been granted i answered your request .

It will only be subsadized if its cheaper than 3.7 cents kwh. It same as saying if gasoline is pumped out for free our govt will give oil companies. Money lol.

Sonce your request has been answered now you can answer mine

Link to bcyhdro plans to lower rates in bc after site c is built ? How many decades shall i wait for answer ?


Fetching an average supply price of 3.7-cent, the auction resulted in record low wind price in Canada. For comparison, the City of Medicine Hat sets its retail price at the default average across Alberta has a December power price of 3.9-cents.

“It’s about great jobs, about private sector investment and getting the best price,” said Notley, further stating that the 29 companies that submitted bids “jumped at the chance to invest in Alberta.”

Government officials estimated the contracts would lead to a combined $1 billion investment, 700 construction jobs over the next three years and $1 million in lease payments for rural landowners were the facilities are location.

The goal is to have 30 per cent of Alberta’s power requirements come from low-carbon sources by 2030. Bringing on the required 5,000-megawatts, could result in $10.5 billion in capital investment, state Alberta Energy officials.

Interestimg medicine hat only pays 3.9 cents

http://medicinehatnews.com/news/local-n ... on-winner/

Binnu Jeyakumar, program director for electricity at the environmental Pembina Institute, said in an email the low auction price has "blown old renewable energy myths out of the water."

By 2030 the program is expected to attract more than $10 billion of investment in the Alberta economy and create more than 7,200 jobs for Albertans as projects are built.
The first round of competition attracted $1 billion of investment from international and Alberta-based companies. It’s expected to create 700 construction jobs and 40 long-term operational jobs.


Round one of the competitive process was designed to ensure new projects won't affect the reliability of our electricity grid and power is delivered at the lowest possible cost to consumers. Projects are required to connect to existing transmission or distribution infrastructure to avoid indirect costs to electricity consumers.

They have to connect to lines already built no extra costs there. [icon_lol2.gif]

Successful projects will be privately funded and supported by reinvesting a portion of carbon revenues from large industrial emitters.

Prvatly funded unlike site c which is publicly funded :smt045

The next rounds of competition are being developed. More details are expected in early 2018.



https://www.alberta.ca/renewable-electr ... ogram.aspx

More to come next year while we stuck with money pit


Nope. Alberta does their electricity pricing to customers very differently. The fees charged for transmission, distribution, billing etc. add up to $61/month for the average resident, then you add the electricity used. As it happens, the electricity rate currently being charged is the lowest since the late 1990s.

The NDP anticipate that their program is going to push the electricity rates up, to roughly double what people are currently paying in Alberta, and that's why they capped electricity prices at double current prices until after the next election. But the electricity "price" does NOT include all the fees for transmission etc.

The fees for transmission are going up, and that will amount to about a 7% increase for an average BC home. Those increases do NOT reflect the significant extra costs for transmission feeder lines for wind power, and you can be absolutely sure that the multi-billion $ pumped hydroelectric is going to be tacked on with more fees.

Then of course, you have to add in the carbon tax, which is going to whack electricity customers in Alberta because the bulk of their power is coal and natural gas. No carbon tax on hydroelectric. :biggrin: Carbon taxes are jumping to $50/ton - or did you conveniently forget that?

You also forget that Alberta is going to have to take other measures to ensure that peak power demands can be met (wind is largely useless for meeting peak demand). That has not yet been fleshed out, but the pumped hydro dam is part of that, as are plans that could see natural gas producers paid "standby charges" so that sufficient peak power is available. You can be sure that if Alberta has to set up "standby charges" for peak demand that those costs will show up in the fees as well. My guess is that you will see the wind guys dump their power, and back charge the Alberta government while destroying the base load market for natural gas generation, which will drive up costs for the them, and they will jack the peak demand prices to compensate.

Al in all, site C will be much cheaper. Remember, it was the former energy critic for the Alberta NDP that estimated site C incremental costs for electricity at $.0110/kWh.

Alberta's plan is for 30% wind power. At that level of intermittent source, their actual prices would jump to roughly what Australia pays. Around $.35/kWh.

We have seen this movie before, and Australia is STILL struggling to sort out the mess that wind and solar create.

We have seen this movie before, and Ontario is STILL trying to sort out the mess that wind and solar create.

We have seen this movie before, and Germany is STILL trying to sort out the mess that wind and solar create.

Alberta is using the exact same template that those three used, and somehow the results will be different??? The worshipers of the Musk bible just don't seem to see that it is just snake oil and a subsidy mining operation.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both. - Louis D. Brandeis

Smurf likes this post.
hobbyguy
Guru
 
Posts: 6991
Likes: 1781 posts
Liked in: 6177 posts
Joined: Jan 20th, 2011, 8:10 pm

Re: 3.7 cents kwh

Postby maryjane48 » Dec 14th, 2017, 7:49 pm

Alberta and australia both start with a,a and thats it lol. People can easily read the info. For themselves . Its all there n black and white .
Until you can prove the power coming from this lottery. Is govt funded which it isnt. And they have to build lines which they dont you simply have lost this debate . By time any dam in canada is built the price of wind and solar will be a penny a kwh. .

We in bc will be getting higher rates while alberta will be working on lowering theirs .im jealius really and thats a,good thing because at some point rest of canada will get in on it to .

As for ont i suggest you have chat with clarks buddy laura miller .
User avatar
maryjane48
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 17124
Likes: 10586 posts
Liked in: 2658 posts
Joined: May 28th, 2010, 6:58 pm

Re: 3.7 cents kwh

Postby GordonH » Dec 14th, 2017, 8:08 pm

So lets say there is 70,000 households in CoK (this does not include businesses or KGH etc)

1 wind turbine can power about 330 homes (that's with a constant wind, no wind no power), so how many are needed just to power everything within the CoK (how many Hectares needed for the wind farm).

curious
Last edited by GordonH on Dec 15th, 2017, 7:52 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
GordonH
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 18733
Likes: 1923 posts
Liked in: 6136 posts
Joined: Oct 4th, 2008, 6:21 pm
Location: Second star to the right and straight on 'til morning

Re: 3.7 cents kwh

Postby Smurf » Dec 14th, 2017, 8:43 pm

maryjane48 wrote:

They have to connect to lines already built no extra costs there. [icon_lol2.gif]


That one line alone shows how little you actually know about this subject. There has to be equipment installed to connect to the lines. I can almost guarantee that there won't be lines sufficient to carry the load right at the doorstep of the project. More will have to be built. Operating a transmission system is a very expensive undertaking and someone has to pay for that. All those things have to be considered as costs and will be charged to the people on Alberta one way or another. Those are just the start of additional costs that the government has forgotten to mention in the overall picture while trying to sell this to the public. You have to remember there is nothing free in this world.
Consider how hard it is to change yourself and you'll understand what little chance you have of changing others.

The happiest of people don't necessarily have the best of everything, they just make the most of everything that comes their way.

Queen K likes this post.
User avatar
Smurf
Guru
 
Posts: 8885
Likes: 12926 posts
Liked in: 4748 posts
Joined: Aug 12th, 2006, 7:55 am
Location: Okanagan BC

Re: 3.7 cents kwh

Postby alanjh595 » Dec 15th, 2017, 5:52 am

Alberta will need up to $25 billion of new investment in electricity generation by 2030 to support the transition toward cleaner sources of energy and meet the needs of electricity consumers. In order to attract this investment, protect consumers from price volatility and maintain system reliability, Alberta is transitioning to a capacity marketexternal link icon system. In a capacity market, private power generators are paid through a mix of competitively auctioned contracts that pay their fixed capital costs and revenue from the spot market.

http://www.energy.alberta.ca/OurBusines ... ricity.asp
User avatar
alanjh595
Übergod
 
Posts: 1652
Likes: 566 posts
Liked in: 1072 posts
Joined: Oct 20th, 2017, 4:18 pm

Re: 3.7 cents kwh

Postby maryjane48 » Dec 15th, 2017, 9:20 am

Lol thats not a subsady thats investment in getting off coal .any govt would have to do that .keep trying though :130:
User avatar
maryjane48
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 17124
Likes: 10586 posts
Liked in: 2658 posts
Joined: May 28th, 2010, 6:58 pm

Re: 3.7 cents kwh

Postby Carrs Landing Viking » Dec 15th, 2017, 12:56 pm

*removed*
Last edited by ferri on Dec 15th, 2017, 1:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Baiting
User avatar
Carrs Landing Viking
Board Meister
 
Posts: 551
Likes: 6305 posts
Liked in: 630 posts
Joined: Mar 2nd, 2010, 7:06 pm

Re: 3.7 cents kwh

Postby Ka-El » Dec 15th, 2017, 1:02 pm

*removed*
Last edited by ferri on Dec 15th, 2017, 1:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Baiting
research shows right-wingers tend to be less intelligent than left-wingers, and people with low
childhood intelligence that tend to grow up to be conservative with racist and homophobic views

Carrs Landing Viking likes this post.
User avatar
Ka-El
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 3858
Likes: 1859 posts
Liked in: 3066 posts
Joined: Oct 18th, 2015, 8:19 am

Re: 3.7 cents kwh

Postby alanjh595 » Dec 15th, 2017, 1:25 pm

maryjane48 wrote:Lol thats not a subsady thats investment in getting off coal .any govt would have to do that .keep trying though :130:


May I offer some clarification of what a subsidy is:
What is a 'Subsidy'
A subsidy is a benefit given to an individual, business or institution, usually by the government. It is usually in the form of a cash payment or a tax reduction. The subsidy is typically given to remove some type of burden, and it is often considered to be in the overall interest of the public, given to promote a social good or an economic policy.

BREAKING DOWN 'Subsidy'
A subsidy takes the form of a payment, provided directly or indirectly, which provides a concession to the receiving individual or business entity. Subsidies are generally seen as a privileged type of financial aid, as they lessen an associated burden that was previously levied against the receiver or promote a particular action by providing financial support.

A subsidy typically supports particular sectors of a nation’s economy. It can assist struggling industries by lowering the burdens placed on them, or encourage new developments by providing financial support for the endeavors. Often, these areas are not being effectively supported through the actions of the general economy, or may be undercut by activities in rival economies.
Read more: Subsidy https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/su ... z51MoVtZpU
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook
User avatar
alanjh595
Übergod
 
Posts: 1652
Likes: 566 posts
Liked in: 1072 posts
Joined: Oct 20th, 2017, 4:18 pm

Re: 3.7 cents kwh

Postby maryjane48 » Dec 15th, 2017, 5:02 pm

http://calgaryherald.com/opinion/column ... gy-auction


Win for alberta while in bc our rates going up. :200:
User avatar
maryjane48
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 17124
Likes: 10586 posts
Liked in: 2658 posts
Joined: May 28th, 2010, 6:58 pm

Re: 3.7 cents kwh

Postby Jlabute » Dec 15th, 2017, 5:08 pm

Australia, a leader in wind and solar, has chronic blackouts to a point where industry is shut down to help, and people are told not to turn on their TVs or cook food. On top of having a poor and unreliable power source, they pay 3x what we pay. Any wind and solar project eventually ends up being unreliable and expensive especially if it is a dominant source. Shutting industry down for weeks kills an economy which is another cost of wind and solar. Wind and solar is total stupidity.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-electricity-outages/australia-heat-wave-causes-firms-to-power-down-but-blackouts-avoided-idUSKBN15P0NZ
I do diligence and sometimes diligence does me.

2 people like this post.
User avatar
Jlabute
Übergod
 
Posts: 1233
Likes: 608 posts
Liked in: 731 posts
Joined: Jan 18th, 2009, 1:08 pm

Re: 3.7 cents kwh

Postby hobbyguy » Dec 15th, 2017, 5:18 pm

maryjane48 wrote:http://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/martin-everyones-a-winner-in-albertas-first-renewable-energy-auction


Win for Alberta while in bc our rates going up. :200:


Alberta rates ARE going up. Dream on with with windy solar stuff. You never add in the subsidies direct or indirect. You have zero understanding of system costs. The price at the producer is NOT what matters, it is what the consumer pays. What the consumer pays includes extra taxes to finance subsidies that go to wind hucksters. In Ontario's case that is $45 billion ++ for just 10 years.

Do you really think Jason Kenney is not going to put an end to this nonsense?
We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both. - Louis D. Brandeis

2 people like this post.
hobbyguy
Guru
 
Posts: 6991
Likes: 1781 posts
Liked in: 6177 posts
Joined: Jan 20th, 2011, 8:10 pm

Re: 3.7 cents kwh

Postby maryjane48 » Dec 15th, 2017, 6:19 pm

Your wrong and your mistruths are not doing your side any good . It wws announced long time ago alberta,would use tax money from carbon using companies to get the road to renewables going. Not taxmoney from the public.
User avatar
maryjane48
Buddha of the Board
 
Posts: 17124
Likes: 10586 posts
Liked in: 2658 posts
Joined: May 28th, 2010, 6:58 pm

Re: 3.7 cents kwh

Postby hobbyguy » Dec 15th, 2017, 8:20 pm

maryjane48 wrote:Your wrong and your mistruths are not doing your side any good . It wws announced long time ago alberta,would use tax money from carbon using companies to get the road to renewables going. Not taxmoney from the public.


No MJ, you are swallowing the wind industry big lie sales pitch.

What matters is not the price of generation, what matters is the system cost and the price to consumers.

Tell me what good a wind turbine does when the wind isn't blowing? Or when the wind is blowing and it is 3 am?

You need to understand that intermittent sources of electricity, which can not be dispatched as needed, are parasitic on the grid system. Eventually, as in Australia, the parasites overwhelm the system, and the costs and price to consumers goes through the roof. Wind turbines are to grid electricity systems what ticks are to an animal.

And you are incorrect. The Alberta carbon tax on companies is just passed on to consumers - who then pay additional carbon tax themselves. https://www.alberta.ca/climate-carbon-pricing.aspx

"Estimated indirect costs

Businesses may pass some costs related to the carbon levy on to consumers. However, the increase is expected to be relatively small, since commodities imported from outside the province are not subject to the levy.

The indirect costs are estimated to range from $70 to $105 per household in 2018."

So each household is being taxed, via companies $70 to $105. Then each household has to face these taxes:

"Table 1. Carbon levy on major fuels
Type of Fuel Current rate
($20/tonne) Rate goes up Jan 1, 2018
($30/tonne)
Marked farm fuels Exempt Exempt
Diesel 5.35 ¢/L +2.68 ¢/L
Gasoline 4.49 ¢/L +2.24 ¢/L
Natural Gas 1.011 $/GJ +0.506 $/GJ
Propane 3.08 ¢/L +1.54 ¢/L

Source: Alberta Climate Change Office"

Admittedly, half of households will get that rebated, but the rest won't. And if you live in a rural area where you need to burn more fuel, or are forced to use propane for heating because natural gas doesn't come your way (or worse yet heating oil), the rebate won't cover your costs.

In the end, taxes are paid by households.
We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both. - Louis D. Brandeis
hobbyguy
Guru
 
Posts: 6991
Likes: 1781 posts
Liked in: 6177 posts
Joined: Jan 20th, 2011, 8:10 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Canada

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests