Ontario’s green dreams

National Post Editorial

On Thursday, the European Union filed a complaint with the World Trade Organization claiming that the huge subsidies Ontario is offering developers of alternate energy violate international trade rules. If the EU complaint is upheld, Ontario will have to abandon its Green Energy Act of 2009 – since green energy isn’t economically feasible on a large scale without some form of government subsidy, either in Ontario or anywhere else. By that time, the plan will have cost Ontario taxpayers and consumers billions of dollars.  Read article

8 thoughts on “Ontario’s green dreams

  1. Rocco Rossi calls the Liberal green energy plan ‘a recipe for bankruptcy’.

    “But Rossi pointed out that Samsung stands to get $1 billion a year in annual revenues from power generation projects through the Feed-in-Tariff (FIT) program, under which the Ontario Power Authority guarantees fixed rates for companies generating electricity using solar, wind, biomass and other renewable sources. “We are subsidizing each one of those jobs to the tune of over $1 million,” he said. “That’s a recipe for bankruptcy.”


    • energy01 –
      pretty good bipartisan site – if you venture into it
      – you will enjoy!

  2. Norman Bates:

    Have you now taken to murdering the truth? 😉

    My understanding of Solar is that it is even more useless than wind — unless all you want is a reduced lifestyle where you use very little electricity. Surely you are not commending Solar over wind — or are you?

    I have very little agreement with James E. Hansen — but on his recent statement/publication I concur:


    Hansen’s comparison of belief in renewables to belief in the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy and his comparison of such policies to forcing his grandchildren to drink kool-aid. Hansen placed part of the “intellectual” blame for widespread belief in such policies on Amory Lovins, a prominent American environmentalist who was the first proponent of soft renewables as a large footprint energy solution. It appears to me that there appears to be a direct lineage from Lovins’ fantasies criticized by Hansen to the IPCC Greenpeace scenario in the recent WG3 report on renewables.

    I don’t think you will convince me at least that any of the current offerings for “Renewable, Green, Clean Energy” are worth much at all. I am looking forward to the days of “Green Energy” — providing a source is discovered in this lifetime.

    Now if you have numbers showing that Solar Power is a feasible (reliable, dispatchable, non-intermittent) source of energy — please share them. Could we really get enough battery storage to power Ontario over night time?

    Just curious.

  3. If people are truly curious about the solar option, compared to others, there’s some challenging material at http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/08/12/tcase13/

    Solar output needs balancing too – in the short term more so than wind … so you cannot have significant solar without fossil backup. Denmark and Germany have enormous emissions intensities in their generation systems, compared to Ontario. They aren’t examples of anything other than how to have much higher emissions intensities than Ontario.

    That’s not to say solar doesn’t have promise. Advancements in storage could make it far more useful (which isn’t the case with wind, where we’d need to store April’s energy until July!).

Comments are closed.