The end of solar hot water

[Heynow999]

I am sad to say that it no longer makes economic sense to install a solar hot water system. There used to be a bunch of rebates and they are all gone.

Ecoenergy rebate - gone

PST rebate -gone

Solar neighbourhoods - gone

HRTC -gone

With all these rebates it used to be possible to install a system and save money from day one. It was a no brainer. Now, with cheap gas prices the payback is somewhere around 45 years. Look forward to more smog days in Toronto

[Sean_A]

Hey what can you say, they're all broke these days.
Quebec is increasing taxes crazily in the next few months. You guys are lucky to at least have the FIT program! Go with it before they drop the rates.

[Gloaming]

The solution is easy - pay more taxes so the government can subsidize YOUR personal choice for how to heat your water.

[Frankie3s]

The solution is easy - pay more taxes so the government can subsidize YOUR personal choice for how to heat your water.

So true and something that a lot of people simply cannot understand.

[88]

The solution is easy - pay more taxes so the government can subsidize YOUR personal choice for how to heat your water.


So true and something that a lot of people simply cannot understand.

Oh, oh... I guess that means getting rid of the existing government subsidies for oil, gas, and electricity too!

[Heynow999]

A subsidy is a good way to encourage green home improvements. The Governments risk is know and limited. Private companies go out and take the risk to develope the product, create awareness of the product , then figure out how to install them efficiently. Solar hot water heater are good products that work well and last for 20 plus years. The problem is with cheap energy they don`t make economic sense. That doesn`t mean they don`t make sense enviromentally. They do, and if I were to move I would install one on my new house regardless of payback. I feel it is the responsible thing to do.

The FIT program is another example of a good subsidy. All the government does is pay for what is produced. They don`t give any cash subisdy at all. The public has to provide all the capitol.

The real waste in government is when they take our money and do thier own little projects that set up huge bureaucracy`s with never ending payrolls and pensions that produce absolutely nothing, eg the gun registry. What did that cost? 3 Billion? That would have paid the complete cost to put a solar system on 300,000 roofs. What would have benefitted Canada more?

[Frankie3s]

Oh, oh... I guess that means getting rid of the existing government subsidies for oil, gas, and electricity too!

Here's your subsidy, http://www.thestar.com/business/article/789274--hydro-bill-to-get-even-bigger?bn=1.

[stealth]

Maybe this will motivate manufacturers to develop products with more tangible and quantifiable benefits before instead of relying on the credits as a crutch since people were more likely to buy them regardless since it wasnt all coming out their own pocket.

[88]

Here's your subsidy, http://www.thestar.com/business/article/789274--hydro-bill-to-get-even-bigger?bn=1.

Heh! :lol: That's a pretty good joke, because we're nowhere near to paying the true cost of energy in Canada. These recent pay-for-usage increases are a small positive step towards consumers paying a realistic price for mainstream power.

[kitty]

The solution is easy - pay more taxes so the government can subsidize YOUR personal choice for how to heat your water.


So true and something that a lot of people simply cannot understand.

I totally understand this.

However, isn't the reality that things just get shifted around in the (tax) pot to somewhere else? So it's not like we'll pay less taxes now that the rebate/subsidy is gone.

What it really means we'll just have one less way to get our tax dollars back from the pot.

[TrevorK]

I totally understand this.

However, isn't the reality that things just get shifted around in the (tax) pot to somewhere else? So it's not like we'll pay less taxes now that the rebate/subsidy is gone.

What it really means we'll just have one less way to get our tax dollars back from the pot.


We? You mean a select few (in terms of percentage) people.

What it means is that the dollars it was allocating towards this project will go to a different project, benefiting a different group of people. It would be a tad bit unfair to continually subsidize a specific group of people, wouldn't it?

(And, before you answer, remember, that just because it may occur now doesn't make it fair)

[lavar]

These programs encourage significant improvements in energy efficiency. Making energy efficient improvements (such as installing a solar hot water heater) help stabilize peak demand usage from residential users in the winter and the summer. This offsets some of the need for supply and potentially reduces the need for new generation stations to be built by the hydro company and also reduces the cost of additional coal and oil that needs to be burnt during these peak periods. Investing in these programs is far less expensive than building new generation stations (leading to higher rates and electricity expenses for everyone). So which is more responsible? - millions for energy efficiency programs or billions for new generation stations?

It is a shame to see these go.

It would be fair to subsidize the few that take advantage of the programs because those who don't are unfairly putting extra burden on our electricity infrastructure. They add a cost that they do not pay fully as is shared amongst all users when rate increases are required to make new electricity generating stations. These programs compensate energy efficient citizens for the cost-increasing behaviours of those who don't or are unable to make these kinds of improvements.

[death_hawk]

You know what the sad thing is? I pay more 24/7 for power than Toronto pays for peak usage.

I'd gladly pay a bit extra to install a decent nuclear plant or something. I want in on this cheap power.

[Lucky Ducky]

I'll second that nuclear power station though! :D

Cheap, clean, efficient and SAFE, inspite of what the NIMBYs say...... :)

Gloaming...right on!

[Wei_Li]

I totally understand this.

However, isn't the reality that things just get shifted around in the (tax) pot to somewhere else? So it's not like we'll pay less taxes now that the rebate/subsidy is gone.

What it really means we'll just have one less way to get our tax dollars back from the pot.

Either that or have the gov't start up more crown corporations that compete internationally.

Creates jobs for people and brings in money from the outside how can we lose? Oh right the PM says it's a lot of work to do on top of giving themselves raises.

[voodoo401]

I'll second that nuclear power station though! :D

Cheap, clean, efficient and SAFE, inspite of what the NIMBYs say...... :)

Gloaming...right on!



Nuclear is not cheap....

[death_hawk]

(NOTE: I know Wiki isn't dead reliable for this, but I'm not doing a research essay so this is good enough)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_cost_of_electricity_generated_by_differen t_sources

Ok, cheap is the wrong word, but it's fairly inline with most other useful power generating options, depending on where you price everything.
I don't count photo voltaic solar or wind as "useful" as they only generate power during sunny/windy times. In order to qualify as "useful" it has to run 24/7/365 (minus maintenance windows etc)


It's clean and has a damn near unlimited source of fuel.
Plus with the proper reactor, it produces barely any waste (See Fast Breeder Reactor)

[pluto]

I don't count photo voltaic solar or wind as "useful" as they only generate power during sunny/windy times. In order to qualify as "useful" it has to run 24/7/365 (minus maintenance windows etc)

Solar PV generates its power during the daytime which is the peak time for consumption (business hours for most industry and corporations) and even when its cloudy there is a significant output - in my experience it can be half or more of the output produced on a clear, sunny day. Half is still better than zero in my opinion.

No it can't be the sole source of power, but if it helps to take the strain off peak usage periods and possibly prevent the need for building additional nuclear/coal/gas plants in the future, then its well worth it.