While many of us weren’t paying attention, solar electricity became the world’s cheapest source of electricity. This shift is due to a nearly 50 percent decrease in solar panel prices worldwide in 2023, which are expected to continue falling. Solar energy is simple and safe to produce, working in hot and cold weather.
Solar providers can deploy at an electric utility scale and install new projects within weeks, provided the necessary grid connections and permits are in place. Solar panels require minimal maintenance and operating costs, have a lifespan of decades, and can be recycled.
Solar energy benefits plant growth and improves soil and sheep health when integrated with farming on marginal sheep pasture land. This approach boosts sheep farmers’ revenue per sheep. Additionally, farmers and rural communities earn considerable income from the electricity generated by solar panels, which currently amounts to billions in Texas.
Ontario must embrace solar energy to lower costs for consumers and businesses, enhance energy independence, support farmers and the rural economy, and enrich the soil. The province should approve solar permits requested by sheep farmers who commit to the continued use of marginal pasture land for agriculture rather than imposing a blanket ban on solar development in “prime agricultural areas.”
The combination of solar power and battery storage revolutionized energy systems in Texas and California. Texas generates so much utility-scale solar electricity that wholesale prices are often negative on sunny afternoons, even with high air conditioner use.
By the end of 2025, Texas is projected to add 24 gigawatts (GW) of solar energy, increasing its electricity supply by over 25 per cent, along with 13 GW of battery storage. One gigawatt is roughly equivalent to the energy produced by a large nuclear power reactor.
Major electricity consumers (here and here) are relocating to Texas because of the low electricity prices facilitated by fair competition from low-cost renewable sources.
If Ontario adopted a fair, open, and competitive process for securing all new electricity supply, solar projects would also thrive here, enhancing our energy security. Ontario has excellent conditions for solar generation, particularly in the summer when electricity demand peaks.
The choice to use high-cost nuclear and gas for new energy generation has resulted in consistently rising electricity prices in the province. Although competitive procurement processes have been used for a small percentage of new generation, they do not allow solar energy combined with agricultural use to compete.
No nuclear project in Ontario has undergone a public cost review, let alone a competitive procurement process. A study of the 75 nuclear power plants built in the U.S. from 1966 to 1977 found an average cost overrun of 207 per cent. More recent plants have had even higher cost overruns; Vogtle had a cost overrun of 1,200 per cent.
The new small modular reactors (SMRs) have also experienced large cost overruns, leading to project cancelations. The last nuclear reactor built in Ontario was so expensive it caused Ontario Hydro to become technically bankrupt.
Ontario successfully ended coal electricity generation, reducing emissions and significantly improving air quality. However, we are falling back as the province increases its reliance on polluting gas generation, which poses serious health risks; fossil fuel emissions are tied to an estimated 5.13 million deaths annually.
Consequently, Ontario spends over $7 billion yearly to artificially lower electricity prices, yet residential electricity rates continue to rise.
Ontario pays once for overpriced electricity and then pays a second time to subsidize reduced rates for taxpayers, accruing debt that taxpayers must repay with interest—creating a future tax burden.
A fair, transparent, and competitive approach to procuring all new electricity generation isn’t just sound policy; it’s common sense. Allowing all providers to contribute to Ontario’s energy future will lower costs, strengthen the economy, support soil health and agriculture, and provide revenue for farmers and farming communities—all while enhancing energy security.
Lyn Adamson is co-chair of ClimateFast and a member of the City of Toronto Climate Advisory Group and Citizens Climate Lobby.
Comments
It's amazing that we (Ontarians, collectively) continue to let Doug Ford saddle us and future generations with high energy costs and climate breakdown. We should stop this madness.
Articles about solar routinely fail to note the low "capacity factor". That's the percent of the possible output you actually get. Site C in BC has a "nameplate capacity" of 1.2 GW, or 1200 MW. If it ran for all 8765 hours of a year, that would be 10,518 GW-hours. It will actually produce 5500 GW-hours (GWh) because there isn't that much water in the river. So it has a capacity factor of 5500/10518 = 52%.
Even nuclear plants have just 85%, because they need long shutdowns for maintenance and refueling.
Solar is about 20%. (On your house, 16% - utilities set up perfect conditions.)
So, even with appropriate loads and storage, so that every watt-hour is used, you have to divide by five to get the actual addition to the grid in methane-plant equivalents.
Roy, you have brought up an important question—how do you compare radically different types of generation in a way that makes mathematical sense, taking into account the various efficiencies, uptime, downtime, fuel cost, fuel delivery cost, maintenance, etc. of each type of generation?
The standard way to do this is to calculate the Levelized Cost Of Energy Electricity (LCOE). Briefly, it is:
the sum of costs for the generator over its lifetime
divided by
the sum of the electrical energy produced over the generator's lifetime
The first line links to a Our World In Data page with the LCOE of the various generations plotted over time. And, yes LCOE, considers maintenance and capacity factors inherently. Wikipedia has a good article on LCOE.
LCOE is imperfect - there are two factors LCOE leaves out:
dispatchability - what we want is instant on (like a battery, in milliseconds) for all generators - this factor is ignored; this would be a difficult calculation since it would vary based on demand and the state of other generators on the grid at the time of generation
downstream costs - the consequences of running the generator - things like disposing of radioactive, spent nuclear fuel - storing in a safe, secure place for thousands of years.
An even bigger one is the costs associated with combustion-based electricity generation emissions. The health care costs associated with breathing emissions are enormous. The cost to society of carbon emissions - extreme weather, sea level rise, desertification etc. are much larger yet again; all downstream costs are excluded, along with generator removal and disposal at end of life, site restoration back to it's original condition
One more thing - insurance—full commercial insurance is simply not available for nuclear power plants, even with re-insurance and insurance pooling. In Canada, nuclear power plants are required to have partial insurance of 1 billion; a bad nuclear accident will significantly exceed that (Fukushima, around 550 billion; Chernobyl, around 700 billion).
This means the taxpayer is on the hook for the rest. It seems odd that the government doesn't treat this as an insurance liability, at least theoretically, with normal insurance payout set-asides. This way, the entire insurance cost could be included in the LCOE calculation, making it more accurate. Since this is a cost other generators include, this seems unreasonable and understates the cost of nuclear.
Not including radioactive spent fuel storage costs also seems unreasonable and also understates the actual cost of nuclear - secure and safe storage is needed, and no long-term solution is yet in place in Canada in spite of lengthy discussions. The first facility in the world is under construction in Finland, projected operational in 2026