Hydro bill

sburns said:
Well the overall scheme of electricity in Ontario is very confusing and f-d up. The price of it has what almost doubled in a short period of time, and it doesn't seem like we are using a whole lot more of it, or the demand has become stagnate, yet we pay more.

People throw around "we are not paying the real amount" How why, what evidence is there, or just more political BS? I thought the whole system was designed to offer affordable rates. I could care less what is happening in the rest of the world our market is here. When that is referenced it makes me think this is an excuse to sell users on higher prices. My money didn't go into out of province infrastructure. At least I hope it didn't

I found this article from the globe interesting. Who knows how slanted it might be against the Liberals but it is informative non the least.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...city-cost-so-much-in-ontario/article33453270/

Either way there just seems like more financial hurt is on the way with nothing the average joe can do, but work more for the same services and dance around and micromanage your usage.

Sometimes I forget we live in the first world when we have nonsense like this to deal with. Life should be better then burdened with more taxes, less services, and accepting the status as is.
Click to expand...

Using the chart in the link we are a third higher than the average and we are somewhat careful with usage. we pay about $115 a month but in Winnipeg it would be $55-60.

Wynne is talking subsidies. Hey, lets go full bore nanny state. 100% subsidy and we get "free" electricity. Except that we would be paying for it through our taxes. Since everyone thinks it's free why conserve?

Condos that have individual suite metering use 30% less power than ones where the hydro is part of the maintenance fee.
 
nobbie48 said:
Using the chart in the link we are a third higher than the average and we are somewhat careful with usage. we pay about $115 a month but in Winnipeg it would be $55-60.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's nowhere near as easy as the way you put it .... http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/hydro-gamble-means-double-digit-rate-increases-1.3985783

Every province in this country has its challenges, but also have different geography (energy sources etc.) and population .... you simply cannot say "x in Ontario would certainly mean Y in Manitoba"
 
nobbie48 said:
Using the chart in the link we are a third higher than the average and we are somewhat careful with usage. we pay about $115 a month but in Winnipeg it would be $55-60..
Click to expand...

Almost 100% of Manitoba's energy comes from dirt cheap hydroelectric, same as Quebec. It should be no surprise to anyone that their electricity rates are dramatically cheaper than Ontario where we our hydroelectric capabilities are token in comparison, and we need to rely on much more expensive nuclear.
 
The old model used since the Sir Adam Beck era was to turn massive turbines and generators in order to force an epic amount of electricity through a relatively fragile transmission system with enough juice to make it to say Kapuskasing or other far away equivalent. Turning huge equipment meant using an awesome force like water or superheated steam (yes nuclear is still 1940's technology for the most part). In Quebec, Manitoba or BC, they have a surplus of water systems... In Ontario we have capitalized on all available water resources long ago. All we realistically have left (in terms of the 'old model') is nuclear since coal is gone. Renewables are the future. Nuclear and hydraulic will likely always remain 'base load'. The decommissioned Nanticoke (coal) generating station is slated to become a giant solar station. It will be interesting to see what will become of Pickering, Lakeview, Lampton, Lennox etc.
 
ungoloth said:
Renewables are the future. Nuclear and hydraulic will likely always remain 'base load'. .
Click to expand...

Glad to see someone else who understands that and doesn't automatically jump on the "solar/wind is a lost cause" train that so many are itching to ride.

I really think that in 50 years when storage technology has made it through a few exponential advances that 100% renewable will be viable. The issue in our current state is actually storing daytime generation (ie, solar) for night time usage, or storing periods of high wind generation for calm days with none.

Those challenges will be overcome, and we will leave nuclear in the past. But for now, yes, it's our best route.
 
ungoloth said:
The old model used since the Sir Adam Beck era was to turn massive turbines and generators in order to force an epic amount of electricity through a relatively fragile transmission system with enough juice to make it to say Kapuskasing or other far away equivalent. Turning huge equipment meant using an awesome force like water or superheated steam (yes nuclear is still 1940's technology for the most part). In Quebec, Manitoba or BC, they have a surplus of water systems... In Ontario we have capitalized on all available water resources long ago. All we realistically have left (in terms of the 'old model') is nuclear since coal is gone. Renewables are the future. Nuclear and hydraulic will likely always remain 'base load'. The decommissioned Nanticoke (coal) generating station is slated to become a giant solar station. It will be interesting to see what will become of Pickering, Lakeview, Lampton, Lennox etc.
Click to expand...

When Ontario Hydro was formed to create a more efficient grid a lot of small independant energy producers were shut down. The ruins at Cataract still exist.

I don't know how many others got scrapped but they might work if not cost prohibitive. If an individual can pump solar back into the grid why not hydro?
 
PrivatePilot said:
Glad to see someone else who understands that and doesn't automatically jump on the "solar/wind is a lost cause" train that so many are itching to ride.

I really think that in 50 years when storage technology has made it through a few exponential advances that 100% renewable will be viable. The issue in our current state is actually storing daytime generation (ie, solar) for night time usage, or storing periods of high wind generation for calm days with none.

Those challenges will be overcome, and we will leave nuclear in the past. But for now, yes, it's our best route.
Click to expand...
Wind and solar are the predominant energy sources in Germany. Over Christmas they generated more then they used. Customers actually got paid to use electricity.

In Ontario.. .

We pay the state's a premium to take our extra energy.shame shame

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
 
Source of numbers? .... Seems that in 2016 Google suggests that 66% of power came from fossil based sources .... That's the only figure I can find. Hardly the text book case, if you ask me .... Or better than Ontario.
 
Roadghost said:
Going to be in for big bills if this cold snap keeps up.
Click to expand...

Only if you heat with electricity.

Bigger natural gas bills, for the rest of us, yeah, for sure. But gas is comparatively cheap compare to electric heat.
 
RockerGuy said:
Thank goodness for global warming eh?
Click to expand...

Weather ≠ climate.

Let’s not jump on the “Oooh, it’s cold outside” bandwagon and mistake the two.

Anyone else remember the last 2 winters where the hardier amongst us rode all year around and it was 20 degrees on Christmas Eve? I do. You wouldn’t have been able to do that 10 or 20 years ago. Ever.
 
Everytime weather is a little warm or colder it's always climate change. I realize that it affects in both ways but not everything is climate change .
 
LiNK666 said:
Everytime weather is a little warm or colder it's always climate change. I realize that it affects in both ways but not everything is climate change .
Click to expand...
It's the only way to shove that carbon tax down your throat, bro
 
I wonder if when they do their boogie man energy usage calculations they consider that the wasteful old beer fridge or incandescent bulb is actually a heat source when it's cold outside. A dozen 100 watt incandescent bulbs puts out the same amount of heat as a 1200 watt baseboard heater.

So turn on the lights, make tea or coffee, leave the fridge door open.

A few decades ago I did an energy usage calculation for a commercial application using hourly data summaries from Pearson Airport.

Toronto was 40 F or colder 43% of the year.
 
Toronto is like a woman :| it has that extra layer of ...

oops, I probably can't say that here.
 
nobbie48 said:
I wonder if when they do their boogie man energy usage calculations they consider that the wasteful old beer fridge or incandescent bulb is actually a heat source when it's cold outside. A dozen 100 watt incandescent bulbs puts out the same amount of heat as a 1200 watt baseboard heater.
Click to expand...

They consume equivalent power, I doubt they put out the same amount of heat ....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom