Slashdot Mirror
Canada to Build 40MW Solar Power Plant
IceDiver writes "According to an article in the Toronto Star, an Ontario company has been given approval to build a 40MW solar power plant near Sarnia in Southwestern Ontario. This is enough power for about 10,000 homes. The plant will cover 365 hectares (1.4 sq. miles) and is to be operational by 2010. OptiSolar, the company building the plant, claims to have developed a way to mass produce the solar panels at a dramatically reduced cost, making the plant competitive with other forms of power generation. 'Compared to coal, nuclear power, even wind, solar's squeaky-clean image comes at a high price. OptiSolar is selling the electricity to the province under its new standard offer program, which pays a premium for electricity that comes from small-scale renewable projects. In the case of wind, it's 11 cents per kilowatt-hour. Solar fetches 42 cents per kilowatt hour, nearly four times as much.'"
6 cents.
The nearby nuclear power plant here has three reactors, each of which can generate over 1100MW (one reactor is currently off-line but is on schedule to be on-line next month, now capable of up to 1280MW). Even closer to my house is the dam that can generate over 140MW.
Are you sure about that?
365 hecters = 39.3 million square feet. The average size of new homes are ~2.4k square feet each, or 24 million square feet total. This doesn't count roof space though, as a two story house will have half the roof expected.
It's close, but not a match.
Hmm... 40MW over 10k homes only leaves 4kw average draw per house, or 16 amps of 240 during the day. Figure a 50% load factor(High end), that's 1,440 kw/h per house. At my local price of $.08/kwh $115.20 of electricity. I saw that Canada's subsidizing solar to the tune of $.24/kwh, so it'd end up being $345.60 of electricity.
This is considered good how?
I don't read AC A human right
Building a solar-panel power station is "cool", "neat", and "oh, so hip". However, it makes no economic sense. Solar power is about 3x the cost of the most expensive nuclear power.
Nuclear power is the way to go.
No misunderstand the program. It isn't end-consumers who pay the $0.42/KWh, its the Province of Ontario, through the Ontario Power Authority. It simple gets pumped into the grid, and the consumers continue to pay the standard rate. The contract with the Province is good for 20 years.
The idea is to spur development of renewable energy sources, while fossil fuel based plants are taken offline. It's a pretty sweet deal for the microgenerators (the program is only open to projects that generate a maximum of 10MW at a voltage of 50kV or less).
Note that during peak periods, an extra 3.52/KWh is paid out, and the contract is indexed to inflation. And anyone in Ontario can apply to have their renewable resource microgenerator included in the program simply by filling out an online form.
IMO, this is an excellent program. Ontario has been rebuilding nuclear capacity, has a lot of hydroelectric generation, and has been taking fossil fuel based plants offline (slowly). My family has some holiday property in central Ontario that goes unused for much of the year, and I've long thought that we should invest in some solar panels and a small wind turbine hooked into the power grid to generate some revenue. A program like this could very well make it worth it in the long run. Every such project, no matter how small, is that much less reliance needed on a fossil fuel-based plant somewhere.
Yaz.
Oops -- I forgot the URL to the programs website, for the interested:
http://www.powerauthority.on.ca/sop/
Yaz.
I'm not a "greenie". I can, however, use proper capitalization, grammar, and spelling.
You have to realize that in Ontario many of the existing large-scale power stations are slated to be shutdown within the next 20 years anyhow. Where do you think the capital construction costs for new and/or retrofitted plants is going to come from? Those exact same taxpayers. Who pays for the environmental consequences? Those exact same taxpayers. Who pays for the extra healthcare costs associated with the pollution the existing coal fired plants spew into the atmosphere? Those exact same taxpayers.
The Province specifically capped this program to smaller installations. Capital infrastructure costs money, but once installed will provide benefits for many years to come (and should for significantly longer than then 20 year contract period). The taxpayers are going to wind up paying for this new infrastructure in one way or another -- an incentive like this to create new jobs, new power generation, with the side benefits of a cleaner environment and lessened health care costs (remember, health care in Canada is paid for by the Province), and it's an all-around winning scenario.
I think it is you that needs a lesson in economics. A few lessons in English and typing wouldn't hurt either while you're at it.
Yaz.
The advantage solar power brings is that peak usage is during the day, which happens to be just exactly when solar power is being produced. So, the coal powered plants don't have to work at as high of an output, and during the night, it still operates normally (in most areas, traditional plants operating at minimal levels (they can't be fully shut down on a nightly basis) produce more than enough electricity to meet night demands). Solar plants, unless combined with a storage mechanism (hydrogen production, batteries, etc.) do not replace traditional power, but instead augments it.
Take a look at this map:
http://www.solar4power.com/map2-global-solar-power .html
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
A few points:
FWIW, I haven't lived in Ontario for a few years. I have family that still does, however. IMO, this seems like a pretty good investment on the part of the Province and on the part of taxpayers -- taxpayers get clean burning energy, pollution-related health care costs decrease, jobs are created, and with a bit of luck and ingenuity green power related industries move to Ontario due to its expended market. Sounds like a pretty good deal to the citizens of Ontario to me.
Investments cost money. Governments have been investing in fossil fuel based power plants for decades, through either direct ownership or subsidies. Hell, chances are very good that the power in whatever region you're living in is or has been subsidized by tax dollars. Why start bitching about it just because in this case it's a green technology subsidy
Yaz.
I just have to say that I agree with you. That's one of the points I've tried to make: There are limits to funding, economies, etc... While the supply is not fixed, there are processes that are more efficient than others.
A 40MW plant of solar is unlikely to enable the takedown of even a single coal plant. Even ten of them is unlikely to. Ten of these solar plants would cost $3Billion dollars, which, depending upon which figures you use, would result in 1-3GW of new nuclear plant capacity, which would enable the shutting down of a number of coal plants.
Is it just me, or does it appear that somebody's being awfully free with the troll mod on anybody being down on solar power, or this install of it?
I don't read AC A human right
In Simcity2k, the best way to get power was to raise a block of 3x3 land, cover it with water, and build 9 hydro plants on it. Never blow up. :-)
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.