# AQN or BLX



## spdr1812 (Apr 8, 2016)

Was looking for a renewable with a nice yield , i have a small position in AQN but have been looking @ BLX for a while .

Add to AQN or buy BLX moving forward , thoughts ?


----------



## Dilbert (Nov 20, 2016)

spdr1812 said:


> Was looking for a renewable with a nice yield , i have a small position in AQN but have been looking @ BLX for a while .
> 
> Add to AQN or buy BLX moving forward , thoughts ?


Funny, I am in the same situation. I finally rationalised it by thinking that BLX seems mainly focused on renewables...I don't see a long term viability with that model for Canada. It simply isn't as efficient as the conventional means of generation and is subject to political interference. Just my opinion, of course. I'll be moving to AQN, as a result.


----------



## spdr1812 (Apr 8, 2016)

I thought both AQN and BLX have assets in the US , therefore both being subject to incoming Prez .. ? But your talking about methods of generation more than geography ? 
With the most recent rhetoric from our unfortunate leaders i figured renewables here but might be a good plan , but hurt by US assets potentially .


----------



## yyz (Aug 11, 2013)

Own Boralex, pretty sure they have assets in France as well? We got into this one through the convertible debentures and it has done well .

Edit yes they do,they seem to have the least generation in the US

Canada 
13 Wind 
1 Solar 
9 Hydroelectric 
1 Thermal


USA
7 Hydroelectric

France 

32 Wind
3 Solar
1 Thermal


----------



## Dilbert (Nov 20, 2016)

spdr1812 said:


> I thought both AQN and BLX have assets in the US , therefore both being subject to incoming Prez .. ? But your talking about methods of generation more than geography ?
> With the most recent rhetoric from our unfortunate leaders i figured renewables here but might be a good plan , but hurt by US assets potentially .


Yes, I think that renewable energy is currently being subsidized by governments (us!) up here. I am not sure this would continue as a result of a political change. I doubt it could compete against conventional generation means on its own.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

I've owned Boralex since back in the 90s, before the renewable subsidy became as bad. They were a unit trust and got absolutely hammered when the conservatives pulled the rug out from under trusts. I believe however that the core business is sustainable without heavy subsidies, so if they were reduced BLX would not be immediately bankrupt or anything. I think most of their actual production is Hydro anyway, which is not heavily subsidized -- certainly not as heavily as wind or solar.

Inasmuch as they are benefiting from subsidies, I like to think of owning them as a way to siphon some of those subsidies back into my own pocket.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

One could also throw NPI into the discussion here. It is unclear to me where renewables are really going long term, notwithstanding the momentum built from the climate change file. Users balk at high electrical rates (just ask Wynne) and I suspect governments will have to phase out clean energy subsidies and make industry stand on its own. I believe that is already the trend in some countries/regions with 'growing public resistance'. Ultimately energy conservation and efficiency could be the biggest factor, negating much ability for the boutique renewable firms to make serious money.

Disclosure: I have a partial position in AQN mostly because I want to have a toe in that water, but have reluctance to be exposed to the big bets BLX and NPI have made in Europe. Then again, Trump is a real wild card in AQN's position in US renewables. None of these are for the faint at heart.


----------



## TomB19 (Sep 24, 2015)

Wind isn't subsidized. It's also the cheapest utility scale power. It's a wee bit cheaper than old school coal.

Solar will soon replace wind as the cheapest energy source.

The issue with both of these sources is they are unreliable so they will never be at the core of the power network.

Where this leaves us is a massive roll-out of wind, followed by a massive roll-out of solar. It won't be enough to power our grid but these two sources will carry a large portion of the load to the extent they can. After that, things are a little less clear but I'm betting on batteries (medium term and will increase the ratio of load possible to be carried by wind and solar) and nuclear (long term) both playing key roles. Those four technologies are probably all we'll need. Ultra long term (40+ years), nuclear could well make up 90% of all power generation.

Hydro will take a reduced role but the largest dams will probably be viable indefinitely so they will be key components in the regions they exist. Run of river hydro has enough problems that I suspect it will fall out of favour. Those problems can certainly be dealt with but I expect there will be a simplification of the grid, at some point, and the environmental impact work around installing a run of river project is a big obstacle.

I think coal, in any form, has no future.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

I think natural gas will remain a key cog in the generation matrix. Beyond limited growth in boutique hydro, gas is the easist load balancing input for those days the wind fails to blow or the sun fails to shine. NG generators can bes spooled up in short notice and taken down on short notice. There is no substitute with that kind of flexibility.

And we will pay a lot for that flexibility since those NG sets will be idle a fair bit of time (costs must still be recovered).


----------



## TomB19 (Sep 24, 2015)

AltaRed said:


> There is no substitute with that kind of flexibility.


Your point is taken but there is a substitute that is even more flexible. Batteries.

Batteries would take a whole lot of drama out of the way the power grid is balanced today. When a coal fired plant springs a leak and has to be taken off line, the few minutes it takes to spool up an NG plat is an eternity. Also, two thirds of the power come from reclamation of power from the primary generator's exhaust heat so an NG plant can come online immediately with 1/3 output but it takes time for it to come into it's own. Batteries are instantaneous, bringing a lot of security to the grid.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

If we want acres (hectares) of battery banks sitting around....assuming we don't see a 10 fold increase in battery performance any time soon. 100-500MW of battery power is a s**tload of batteries.

Added: Spooling up NG turbine-generator sets is pretty quick (I am not talking about steam based plants for load balancing).


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

TomB19 said:


> Wind isn't subsidized.


Dunno about France, but in Ontario, where BLX also operates wind generation, it certainly is. Subsidies take the form of preferential guaranteed rates for electricity, often well above the going rate, as well a a guaranty that all of the electricity they generate will be bought at that rate, regardless of whether it is needed. These factors can lead to the totally counterproductive situation where MWHs will be generated and bought onto the grid at $120/MWH, then, because the grid has more electricity than needed, it might be sold into the states at NEGATIVE rates of $30/MWH -- ie: we pay an operator in NY or Quebec to get rid of it.

You can watch the spot rate for electricity in Ontario here: http://www.ieso.ca/Pages/Power-Data/default.aspx#price

This week the spot rate has been in the $0-$40 range (yes, ZERO). If the wind operators had to take the spot rate, there's no way they would be building new farms as fast as they are now.


----------



## Dilbert (Nov 20, 2016)

gardner said:


> Dunno about France, but in Ontario, where BLX also operates wind generation, it certainly is. Subsidies take the form of preferential guaranteed rates for electricity, often well above the going rate, as well a a guaranty that all of the electricity they generate will be bought at that rate, regardless of whether it is needed. These factors can lead to the totally counterproductive situation where MWHs will be generated and bought onto the grid at $120/MWH, then, because the grid has more electricity than needed, it might be sold into the states at NEGATIVE rates of $30/MWH -- ie: we pay an operator in NY or Quebec to get rid of it.
> 
> You can watch the spot rate for electricity in Ontario here: http://www.ieso.ca/Pages/Power-Data/default.aspx#price
> 
> This week the spot rate has been in the $0-$40 range (yes, ZERO). If the wind operators had to take the spot rate, there's no way they would be building new farms as fast as they are now.


+1


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Oh yes, I can see the GTA running on battery storage charged by thousands of windmills or solar farms (but not in my backyard right).
And they are such an environmentally inert thing to produce and dispose of in large quantities (preferably in foreign countries).
:applouse:

Two words: natural gas.


----------



## TomB19 (Sep 24, 2015)

Natural gas is not the future, although it is the present. Coal is in the process of being extincted. Natural gas will be next, although I expect it will be some years down the road. I speculate within 15 years, NG will begin to be phased out. That makes it difficult for utilities to invest in combined cycle NG now, as it's getting marginal whether the plants will make their ROI.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

The only danger to nat gas is small,city sized nuclear generation plants but they seem years away as we have the technology but not yet the will power.


----------

