CanSIA 2012-Integrating Solar Thermal with Geothermal

Thanks to the Photovoltaic Innovation Network, I participated in Solar Canada 2012 in Toronto, Ontario. This conference/exhibition is the largest national solar event in Canada, and is hosted by the Canadian Solar Industry Association (CanSIA). This year the event was quite large, in part due to the fact that it was CanSIA’s 20^th anniversary.

In this conference, I participated in some talks and visited some booths; one of the talks that was really interesting to me was about Solar thermal, Geo-thermal and the opportunity to integrate these two technologies together. Solar thermal installations consist of a solar thermal collector on the roof, a control unit with a pump and a potable water storage tank. The collector absorbs the light from the sun and converts it into heat. This heat is transferred to a liquid which circulates through the collector and down into the solar storage tank (fig-1). There are a lot of solar thermal projects within Canada (as they can easily deployed, even in residential areas), but one of the biggest is at Oxford Gardens retirement home in Woodstock, Ontario. This solar thermal project is saving on air conditioning costs by up to 40%, or approximately $20,000 per year; for heat savings, up to 60% or approximately $40,000 per year, according to Suni Ball from Proterra Solar[1].

 

    A geothermal heat pump, ground source heat pump (GSHP), or ground heat pump is a central heating and/or cooling system that pumps heat to or from the ground. It uses the earth as a heat source (in the winter) or a heat sink (in the summer). Heat pumps provide winter heating by extracting heat from a source and transferring it into a building. In the summer, the process can be reversed so the heat pump extracts heat from the building and transfers it to the ground. Transferring heat to a cooler space takes less energy, so the cooling efficiency of the heat pump gains benefits from the lower ground temperature (fig-2).

 

The combination of these two systems has many benefits [2]:

-Both systems don’t use fossil fuels at the point of use

-Geothermal is the backup for the solar thermal while the Geo-thermal can also provide cooling.

-Large flexibility in the heating appliances that can be used with both systems.

-Using the geothermal loop field as a storage tank to absorb the excess solar energy in the summer.  This advantage allows you to oversize the solar thermal system and increase the solar thermal contribution to the winter heating.

A study has been done [3] for the viability of a combined system in Milton, Ontario. This study shows that a combined system is feasible for space conditioning. For the house in this study, the seasonal solar thermal energy storage in the ground was sufficient to offset the large amount of Geo-thermal pump system length that would have been required in conventional systems. They showed that the economic benefit of such system depends on climate, as well as borehole drilling cost.

To conclude, a hybrid Solar-Geo-thermal system could be an outstanding solution to the high demand of energy in today’s world. It has a lot of benefits like sustainability, being clean (non-polluting) and having the ability to work all year round. Another important benefit is the possibility of using this system for all kinds of applications such as residential, commercial and industrial.

-Farbod Ghods

Ph.D Candidate, 1st Year

Department of Engineering Physics

McMaster University

References

[1]- http://oxfordgardenssolarproject.com

[2]- http://www.dma-eng.com/

[3]- Rad et al, COMBINED SOLAR THERMAL AND GROUND SOURCE HEAT PUMP SYSTEM, Eleventh International IBPSA conference, Glasgow, Scotland, July 2009.

CanSIA 2012-Solar PV Technologies and Innovations: Building an Export Market

Chair
Ian MacLellan, President and CEO, Ubiquity Solar Inc.
Panelists
Nic Morgan, Co-founder and VP Business Development, Morgan Solar
Jan Dressel, President & Managing Director, SPARQ Systems Inc
Ray Morgan, Director Outreach, PV/Solar & Semiconductor, SEMI Americas
Rafael Kleiman, Professor, Director, McMaster University
Clemens van Zeyl, CEO & Co-Founder, ARDA Power Inc.

 

An interesting panel discussion took place on innovation. The panel discussed the meaning of innovation from different points of view. Everyone agreed that Solar is happening faster than everyone expected. In 2001, it was predicted that the world market for new installations in 2010 would be 2.8GW. In 2006, the prediction was increased to 5.5GW. The actual result for new installations in 2010 was 16.8GW. According to PV experience curve, PV module price is estimated to be as low as $0.15/W by 2050. For more information, check out the white paper issued by CanSIA here.

Innovation trends for PV:

• Silicon is and will continue to be the main PV technology, giving a hard time to thin film technology.
• Organic PV might be a player in 20-30 years for specific applications
• Improving reliability in manufacturing yield and PV life time
• Integration of solar systems in commercial buildings by removing the inverter, ie: DC power lines as most instruments work on DC.

Finally, to go the last mile in innovation, it has to be on the system level!

Ahmed Gabr

PhD Candidate, 2nd Year

SUNLAB – University of Ottawa

 

PV and Bureaucracy: An impossible balancing act?

As discussed in Jonathan Boulanger’s excellent blog post, the Ontario FIT program must learn from Germany’s example set before us and remain vigilant in changing FIT rates. On one hand, FIT rates cannot be too lucrative at the expense of the taxpayer. This was the case for the German market. On the other hand, FIT rates cannot be so stingy as to discourage continual investment in the solar market. This describes the current case in Queensland, Australia as per the recent article in pv magazine: http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/australia–proposed-gross-fits-slammed_100008527/#axzz26pjjGSbz

Like the story of the German solar market, the Australian solar market has seen rapid growth in the last two years. As such, in the interest of the taxpayers, regulators are proposing to reduce FIT rates, as is necessary for sustainable growth. However, the current proposal reduces FIT rates to a point threatening the growth of the solar industry, thus defeating its very own purpose. Under the new proposal, businesses and households with solar arrays would be forced to sell electricity to utility companies at the wholesale price of 0.08 AUD/kWh, while buying electricity from the utilities companies at a retail price as high as 0.35 AUD/kWh. Russell Marsh from the Clean Energy Council creates an analogy which goes like this:

“What the Queensland Competition Authority has proposed is the equivalent of telling people they can’t just use the lemons growing on the lemon tree in their backyard – they have to sell the produce to a wholesaler for next to nothing, and then buy the lemons back at a premium from the supermarket” (Taken from http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/australia–proposed-gross-fits-slammed_100008527/#axzz26pjjGSbz)

This proposal, while avoiding the problem that Germany faced, threatens to kill the growth of the solar industry by significantly reducing the incentive for purchasing solar to near nothing. In this proposal, why have a FIT program at all?

If anything, this case study along with the analysis of the Germany story in the previous blog post  highlights one thing:  the PV industry is at the mercy of bureaucracy. Legislation is perhaps the primary factor determining the sustainable growth of the local PV industry.  Grimly, the margin for error is miniscule. There is huge probability of the local PV landscape swinging from the extremes of either quenching the PV industry growth (current Australia proposal) or realizing enormous PV industry growth at significant expense to the taxpayers (German story). Getting FIT programs right is truly a delicate balancing act.

-Andrew Chia ( PhD in Engineering Physics, Year 4, McMaster University)

Lessons from Germany and Around the World

“Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it” – Winston Churchill

This often quoted phrase reminds us that we should never take for granted the examples set by those before us. Whether it be foreign policy or invention, the lessons taught to us by history are equally important.

Since 2009, with the passing of the Green Energy and Green Economy Act (GEA), Ontario has started down a road first tread by Germany. The GEA was modeled after the evolution of Germany’s 1990 Electricity Feed-In Law, which was initially designed to promote small-scale wind and hydro electricity projects and later modified in 2000 and 2004 for solar energy. Following the first modification in 2000, Germany saw a 20 times increase in solar installations within 5 years and another 8 times jump by 2010. During this time, many German solar businesses were founded and flourished under an environment of heavy government subsidies.

So if everything worked out, then why aren’t more countries adopting feed-in-tariff (FIT) programs? After all, there are far more sunny locations than Germany. Unfortunately, Germany’s FIT program was far from perfect. The sudden increase in manufacturing, assembly, and installation of solar in Germany and other parts of Europe brought solar panel prices down sharply. This in turn made the FIT incentives in Germany even more attractive to investors leading to a larger installation than initially expected. This cost the German government more than anticipated, but more importantly, it left manufacturers with very thin profit margins while solar cells became a highly commoditized product.

As it was, the German solar market may have survived, but two major developments occurred: a drastic reduction in government subsidies and China’s entry into the silicon PV market. On one hand, Germany no longer had the political will to pay the growing FIT bill. The unanticipated drop in solar panel prices and the resulting surge of investor interest was more than many politicians could stomach and the FIT funding was sharply cut 30%. Almost simultaneously, China entered the silicon PV market, driving the cost of silicon PV sharply and evaporating the thin profit margins that German manufacturers were reliant on. This unfortunate combination of events has led the bankruptcy of numerous German solar businesses as well as other large solar corporations around the world.

Now as it stands in the 2012 market, the outlook for the German solar energy economy is mixed. While the installed capacity continues to grow at impressive rates and installation and operation corporations are flourishing, the health of the solar manufacturing industry is on life support. The latter industry is now forced to compete with China at the game they play best – high volume, low margin manufacturing. Worst of all, China has been accused of illegally dumping solar cells into the market at prices below cost, resulting in the US and Germany instituting tariffs on Chinese PV imports or incentives for buying home made products. As in most ultra-competitive markets, vertical integration has been the only way to maintain healthy profit margins by cutting costs normally accrued with middle-men suppliers.

With the brief history of solar FITs discussed, how can we best apply this knowledge to Ontario? Firstly, both the German and Ontario FIT programs have shown that they can be incredibly successful at encouraging investment in clean energy technologies; however, this occurs at the expense of the tax payers. In return, taxpayers should hope to expect the creation of jobs in an emerging industry as well as an increase in clean energy production capacity. In order to reduce the burden on the tax payers and for these newly created jobs to become stable and self-sufficient in the market, the FIT must be reduced gradually until the cost of solar energy reaches grid-parity. One particular lesson to learn from Germany was how sensitive the market will be to the FIT rate. If the FIT rate is left high and enough contracts are given, the high demand leads to large increases in manufacturing capabilities. When the FIT rate is then sharply decreased, the resulting decrease in production volume can lead to poor profitability. In other words, the Ontario government must be vigilant when changing the FIT rates so that abrupt swings in capacity are avoided. This vigilance should also include avoiding circumstances where no FIT contracts are awarded for extended periods, such as the 6 month freeze that began towards the end of 2011.

The second important lesson that Ontario can learn from both Germany and the other emerging solar markets around the world is to be conscious of the commoditization of solar cells and solar panels. The Ontario solar industry is primarily composed of solar panel assembly and installation, with the bulk of solar cells being purchased from abroad. There is some inherent protection against international solar panel manufacturers due to their bulky size leading to expensive shipping costs; however, increasing competition from highly efficient, vertically integrated solar corporations may lead to the gradual extinction of Ontario based solar businesses. Furthermore, while it may seem prudent for Ontario to produce its own home-grown vertically integrated solar energy corporation with Ontario based solar cell production, the recent dominance of Chinese solar cell production warns us otherwise. The relatively high cost of labor in places like Ontario or Germany compared with China are incredibly difficult to overcome (even with robotic assembly lines and 24/7 production). Therefore, if Ontario cannot compete on solar cell price, we must focus on quality – higher efficiency solar cells. More efficient solar cells not only reduce the number of cells required to reach a power production target, but reduce cost of the supporting equipment and installation costs. It is here where we may yet find our niche in this booming global market and it will be up to the imagination and innovation of Ontario engineers and business leaders to develop such a disruptive technology venture.

Jonathan Boulanger

(Year 4 PhD in Engineering Physics at McMaster University)

 

 

References:

http://www.npr.org/2012/07/10/156537940/foreign-policy-made-in-the-shade

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/07/09/made_in_the_shade?page=0,0

http://www.nextgenpe.com/article/Vertical-Integration-the-path-to-success-in-a-competitive-market/

http://www.mcmillan.ca/Ontarios-green-energy-feed-in-tariff-program-re-launched-and-revised

FIT 2.0: What do the changes mean?

In attempt to give some perspective to industry stakeholders, CanSIA held a webinar titled “microFIT and FIT 2.0: What it really means for Ontario’s Solar Industry”, featuring several expert panelists. Some of the key points from that webinar are discussed below.

There is now a realization that not everybody who applies can receive a FIT contract. The system of “first come first serve” has changed to one where certain projects are given priority. This was most likely introduced for at least a few reasons.  Firstly, more stringent eligibility requirements will reduce the volume of FIT applications. Secondly, it ensures that priority access is given to those projects that are more likely to succeed, ie. those without community or municipal opposition. Lastly, this amendment will alleviate some of the negative criticism, particularly around community opposition to wind turbines that the FIT program has received.

The suggested annual pricing schedule review is likely to be an improvement. It provides industry with definitive dates and timelines and establishes when changes will occur, which is in contrast to the current situation. Furthermore, it allows the FIT program to more accurately reflect changes in the price of modules or system components.

The Deputy Minister has not yet released how the new pricing schedule was calculated and it is viewed as being somewhat harsh on rooftop PV <10kW. Some attendees of the webinar suggested this may have been a political move considering that the Liberal government received continuous negative criticism from the Progressive Conservatives for the 80.2 cents/kWh tariff. This large reduction may also reflect a shift in the priorities of the provincial government towards larger scale projects where electricity can be produced at a lower cost.

The previous application procedure has been acknowledged as inadequate. The adoption of a more streamlined approach which synchronizes application processing times with project size seems to be a positive step forward.

The running theme of the webinar seemed to be that “the devil is in the details” and currently there is much information that has been left out that will need to be clarified in the updated FIT Rules from the OPA. For example, how does one demonstrate community support of a FIT application? What about the issue of connection capacity, ie. how does 10,700 MW break down? What does that mean by way of area? Stakeholders need clarity of information, for example, tables published regarding where there is connection capacity. People should have access to this information before they go to apply. How was the pricing schedule calculated? How will the new point system work? The list goes on.

Looking to the future, the draft OPA FIT Rules should be released shortly and this should clarify much of the ambiguity of the current recommendations. However, the panelists cautioned not to expect new FIT contracts immediately, suggesting that it may not happen until the Fall or perhaps sooner for microFIT and other small-scale projects.

Through all the ambiguity one thing seems clear: while simple enough in concept, the FIT program is an incredibly complex piece of legislation requiring meticulous planning and foresight for an effective execution. It must balance the needs of all stakeholders and do so in the context of a dynamic electricity system with real physical limitations. The fact that the policy is far from perfect has been acknowledged but what must also be acknowledged is the sheer difficulty of designing it. While the FIT program policy is not yet mature, it is in the process of maturing. Hopefully that fact provides some solace to a strained solar industry.

-Erik Janssen

(Engineering Physics, MASc, Year 2 at McMaster University)

FIT 2.0 – What has changed?

The Ontario provincial government launched the ambitious Green Energy and Economy Act (GEA) in 2009 to encourage the adoption of renewable energy into the province’s electricity mix and to create a new sector of “green-collar” jobs. The largest component of the GEA is the Feed-In Tariff program (FIT). It allows any individual or community stakeholder to produce their own renewable energy and sell it to the local utility at a premium rate that is guaranteed for 20 years.

In terms of uptake, the program has generally been viewed as a success, with 2,000 FIT contracts and 12,000 microFIT contracts having been offered, totalling 4,600 MW of renewable energy. Furthermore, the province claims 20,000 jobs have been created since the program’s inception.

However, despite these successes, there currently seems to be a strong undertone of discontent in Ontario’s solar industry. It seems that the program has been on pause over the past several months, with new FIT contract offers being delayed. Furthermore, there are complaints about a lack of clarity from the provincial government on when this situation will be rectified.

Part of this delay is from the FIT program’s 2-year review that has been conducted over the last several months by the Deputy Energy Minister.  After having solicited feedback from various community stakeholders and private industry, the Ministry of Energy has recently finished a list of recommended FIT program policy adjustments to be adopted by the Ontario Power Authority (OPA). The document is publicly available at: http://www.energy.gov.on.ca/docs/en/FIT-Review-Report.pdf.

The FIT upgrade, unofficially dubbed “FIT 2.0,” has several changes but is stated to be a reaffirmation of Ontario’s commitment to clean energy.  Some of the more important changes are listed below:

• The program target of 10,700 MW of non-hydro renewable electricity procured is set to be hit by 2015 where the previous date was 2018.
• Instead of 2-year reviews, there will be an annual review of the pricing schedule in November of each year and changes will come into effect the following January.
• To streamline the FIT contract approval process, three streams, based on the size and impact of the project, are suggested. This will allow MicroFIT projects and small-scale FIT projects to get through the system quicker.
• Renewable energy producers should be given 18 months from the time a contract is offered to get their installation connected to the grid instead of the current three years.
• FIT projects with community, municipal or aboriginal support will be given priority and this will be evaluated using a new points system instead of the old system which was first come first serve.
• Tariffs should be altered according to a new schedule. Suggested reductions are greatest for solar PV. Hydro and bioenergy didn’t change and wind was slightly reduced. The highest tariff for roof-top solar <10 kW was cut from 80.2 cents/kWh to 54.9 cents/kWh, a reduction of 31.5%.
• More stringent land-use and zoning requirements for ground-mounted solar >10kW.
• Strategies for international expansion and export should be developed to ensure long-term industry survival.

The topic of what these changes may actually mean for the solar industry will be discussed in a subsequent post.

-Erik Janssen

(Engineering Physics, MASc, Year 2 at McMaster University)

That’s the power of a vacuum

Humanity is consuming more and more energy every year and, since much of the world depends on fossil fuel based resources, our total carbon emissions continue to climb as well. In the effort to curb this trend, energy conservation is imperative. One area where conservation efforts can make a particularly large impact is in our nation’s buildings where 40% of our national energy expenditure is consumed. [1] This is a powerful motivation to construct buildings that are more energy efficient. Researchers from the National Research Council (NRC) are attempting to do just that with a promising new technology called the vacuum insulated panel (VIP).

It is important to digress somewhat here.  What does it mean to make a building more energy efficient? Well, we have to actively heat and cool our buildings. In other words, we continually supply energy so as to maintain a constant temperature. If we need to supply it constantly then that means we must be losing it somewhere.  The energy expended to heat or cool a structure is lost through the walls, windows, floor, roof, etc. An “energy efficient” building would lose less.

This is what insulation does. It helps to maintain the difference between the interior and exterior temperature by slowing the rate of heat transfer between them thus requiring less energy to heat and cool the structure. The best insulation possible is a vacuum. This is because heat needs some medium through which to travel and a vacuum is essentially the absence of a medium. Everyone knows that a thermos can keep liquids hot for a long time and this is the reason why. It is insulated with a vacuum (in actuality it would not be a perfect vacuum).

This is the same idea behind VIPs. They are constructed from an open nano-porous material that is strong enough to remain intact under atmospheric pressure. The air is evacuated from the panel and then the whole thing is sealed in a gas barrier to prevent any air infiltration. It is essentially a portable, rigid container that holds a vacuum. In terms of performance it blows the competitors away.

Cross-section of a VIP: The core is made from a porous material. (Picture from ref.)

The ability of a material to prevent heat loss is given by its R-value per unit thickness. Familiar insulation materials like mineral fibre or cellulose are less than R-5 per inch. VIPs can achieve R-values as high as R-60 per inch. This is incredibly high and anyone in the building industry would be very skeptical of such a number. However, that’s just the power of a vacuum.

So why haven’t we seen the widespread proliferation of this wonder-material? There are several reasons. Cost is the most prohibitive factor. VIPs are currently more expensive than the alternatives. However, the researchers at the NRC claim that once economies of scale kick in the cost will come down considerably. Another major issue is  uncertainty in the long-term performance of VIPs. The research has yet to establish how this technology degrades over time. They are certainly less robust than convention materials, as a single pinhole in the gas barrier will compromise the vacuum.  Nevertheless, it is a very promising technology and perhaps not too far away from more widespread adoption.

For the NRC paper on VIPs  see:

Mukhopadhyaya P., M.K. Kumaran, F. Ping and N. Normandin. Use of vacuum insulation panel in building envelope construction: advantages and challenges. May 2011. NRC-53942.

http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/obj/irc/doc/pubs/nrcc53942.pdf

-Erik Janssen

(Engineering Physics, MASc, Year 2 at McMaster University)

---

[1] Mukhopadhyaya et al.

Auditor General’s thoughts on clean energy subsidies

The recent release of the Ontario Auditor General’s critique of the province’s renewable energy policy has rekindled a debate that was brought to the forefront of public attention in the most recent provincial election.

Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak, used strong language to illustrate his interpretation of the report’s findings. He claims that the report was a “scathing indictment” of the Feed-In Tariff (FIT) program and that the “… Auditor General rips [it] apart.” Furthermore, he accosts McGuinty for “…basically giving the finger to the auditor general ,” or put more gently, telling the Auditor general to “take a hike,” when he visited a Samsung-related plant a day after the report was released. (Quotes from Toronto Star article “McGuinty shrugs off auditor’s critique of green energy” available at http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1097966–mcguinty-shrugs-off-auditor-s-critique-of-green-energy)

The report is available online at http://www.auditor.on.ca/en/reports_2011_en.htm and there is a seemingly endless chain of criticism within. While Hudak’s combative and polarizing tone is absent from it, in its place is a recognition that Ontario needs “a balanced and responsible plan with respect to renewable energy that provides Ontarians with a clean, reliable, affordable, and sustainable electricity system,” but this is situated alongside a battery of arguments ultimately concluding that the Ministry of Energy has handled things poorly and needs to do much better.

Detailed criticism can be found within the report itself. However, the general message is that the Ontario government has displayed a lack of comprehensive business-case evaluations motivating their policymaking and the consequence of this is that they are spending considerably more money than necessary on their renewable energy initiatives. As taxpaying citizens we should surely be thankful that the office of the Auditor General is there to keep provincial spending in check and they have identified several cases of potential mismanagement that ought to be brought to public attention.

The report attempted a balanced viewpoint by offering the reader responses from both the Ministry of Energy and the OPA. However, through the all the layers of criticism it is easy to lose sight of the fact that ultimately we are faced with two scenarios: (1) Dramatically change the way we produce energy in response to the looming threat of climate change and resource depletion or (2) Business as usual with heavy dependence on unsustainable carbon-producing energy resources.

Ontario has made the bold decision to pursue the first option. As such, the Auditor General explains to us what has been the cost of acting. However, as thoughtful citizens we also must ask ourselves: what if we chose the second option? What would be the cost of not acting? What if we don’t make an aggressive effort to curb our carbon emissions as the planet continues warms? This is the context that is perhaps missing from the report and it is imperative that we also consider this question alongside the Auditor General’s findings.

-Erik Janssen

(Engineering Physics, MASc, Year 2 at McMaster University)

The Ontario FIT is up for review

Ontario’s Feed-In Tariff (FIT) program has been the driving force behind the province’s expanding renewable energy industry for more than two years.  The program is now up for its scheduled two-year review date. This is an important aspect of the FIT because it allows the policy makers to make necessary adjustments to the program as they learn from the successes and failures of the past two-years.

The biannual review also allows for tariff digression, one of the most important aspects of a successful FIT program. The idea motivating tariff digression is that the province is interested in making renewables a competitive economic investment; no more, no less. If it is not competitive then people won’t invest their money. If it is too lucrative then it wastes taxpayer money and it may also endanger the program.

The province is attempting to make the review process as open and transparent as possible and as such, it is welcoming suggestions from the general public. To have your say you can fill out an online survey at http://www.energy.gov.on.ca/en/fit-and-microfit-program/2-year-fit-review/ or you can send an e-mail to 2yearFITreview@ontario.ca. Ensure your submissions arrive before Dec. 14/2011.

It is a good time to reflect back: what are some of the the notable “successes and failures” of the FIT so far? Perhaps the most notable success has been job creation. Recall that the FIT is a part of the Green Energy and Economy Act and its purpose is not only to foster a sustainable energy supply but also to develop new green-collar manufacturing and engineering jobs as well. The liberals claim 20,000 new jobs have been created but the ambiguity over the word “job” makes this figure less meaningful and thus, open to criticism. What do they mean: full-time, part-time, temporary, long-term?

A third-party consulting agency working for Canadian Solar Industries Association (CanSIA) put the job creation in the burgeoning solar photovoltaic industry, only one form of renewable energy subsidized under the FIT program, at 8,200 PYE by the end of 2011. A PYE is a unit used to measure job creation and is equivalent to one person working full-time for one year. This figure seems commendable seeing that solar is planned to be 1.5% of the long-term energy mix where wind and bio-energy make-up the remaining 11.3% of non-hydro renewables. Looking at job creation from a different angle, the report also states that more than two new dozen solar module and inverter manufacturers have set up shop in Ontario since the FIT program’s inception. (See: http://www.cansia.ca/sites/default/files/economic_impacts_of_solar.pdf)

The road to a sustainable energy mix hasn’t been entirely smooth though. Ontario has come under fire from Japan and the European Union for being protectionist and violating international trade laws with the 60% Ontario content requirement for all FIT contracts. This is something yet to be fully battled out.

Another bump in the road concerned the issue of grid-capacity. A number of solar energy installation owners with signed FIT contracts invested the necessary the capital only to find out later that the grid in their area couldn’t handle the extra electricity. Some creative solutions were offered to this problem but capacity may continue to be an issue.

A simpler, more stream-lined, application process for small-scale contracts seems wanting as well.

However, despite the setbacks, the largest hurdle threatening the survival of the FIT has been surmounted already and that was the previous provincial election. For now the program seems well enough on-track and the present review process will likely improve upon it further.

-Erik Janssen

(Engineering Physics, MASc, Year 2 at McMaster University)