The Oil Drum

Last I checked, Ontario is less than 10% gas fired electricity on a terrawatt hour basis.

Nuclear is about 40% I think, hydro another 30%.

Of course at Peak Load, the mix shifts.

There is programmed to be considerable growth in gas (eg that 550MW station being built in Toronto Harbour) *but* a lot depends on the fate of Nanticoke (largest or 2nd largest coal fired station in N. America). From what I have read, the government has deferred that decision?

Obviously, the highest generation potential for solar energy on the North American continent lies in the Southwest of the US and in Mexico. That potential is so abundant that more energy can be produced there than will be used. The rest can be transmitted over sufficiently built out grids to areas up north which do not have enough insolation to be fully self-sufficient. That extends to Canada, of course. And the potential of Mexico should really not be discounted. Free trade would allow to invest American (and Canadian?) money in ideal locations in Mexico and give all participating countries an enormous economic potential. One can only hope that this kind of continental collaboration will happen in the future.

I looked at the map and it seems to me that the southern parts of Alberta, Saskatshewan, Manitoba and Ontario are still useful sites for PV and solar thermal applications.

For comparison: in California (where I live) annual average insolation is 5.5kWh/m^2/day, which is plenty. Your map shows 4.2-5kWh/m^2/day for the mentioned Canadian provinces. My site, which is typical for much of CA, has an approximately 30% advantage over the Canadian South which goes away completely if you consider the difference between fixed flat plate panels mounted at latitude and a two axis tracking flat plate. In that case the US/Canadian border receives over 6kWh/m^2/day of useful insolation, more than what I am getting with fixed panels. Again, for comparison, the US/Mexican border receives 6-10kWh/m^2/day. The complete maps are here:

http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/redbook/atlas/Table.html

It is obvious that between ideal Mexican locations and useful Canadian locations technology has to bridge a gap of a factor of 2.5-3. More advanced tracking solar systems can make up for part of the difference. Energy imports from the US, and even Mexico are absolutely in the cards for Canada.

For now the US imports most of its energy from Canada and Mexico. As solar generation picks up in the future, we will see a shift of that relationship to the South.

But solar is only one part of the equation, of course. Canada has wind energy resources:

http://www.windatlas.ca/en/maps.php?field=E1&height=80

And I would think that with such an enormous land area it should be able to partially cover its energy needs from biological sources.

And given the fact that Canada only has one tenth of the population of the US and that most of its population lives within a couple hundred miles from the US border should make Canada's energy problem very similar to that of the northern US.

I don't see Canada as a particularly hard case to deal with since we have to solve a much harder problem in the US, already. We will. So will Canada.

"But leanan, how can that Possibly be ?!?!?"

It is called "mismanaged infrastructure". They simply did not invest enough in their power grid, hoping that the tooth fairy will fix overload problems.

Now, "sendoilplease", didn't you chose your name to impress the tooth fairy, yourself? It sounds like change is something that does not appeal to you. You want your status quo and cheap, don't you? But may I suggest a change of name?

"sittingonafatasswaitingforamiracle"

is a good name, too, because it completely describes the mindset.

Or do you prefer

"ificantsolveitneithercanyou"

for your next pseudonym? Because that is really all you are saying in your post. But I will be glad to discuss the numerical facts of solar energy with you. If you really care, that is. Which I kind of doubt, right now. So surprise me!