Category Archives: Wind power

Will Ontario’s Green Power plan save the planet?

16 Sunday Mar 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Here, from energy economist Robert Lyman, an excellent view of the situation we are in because of the Ontario government’s “green energy” tactic. never mind that has failed as an economic driver and job creation mechanism, did it ever have a hope of what it was supposed to do? “Save” the environment?

Will Ontario’s Green Power plan save the planet?

The Ontario government has to date committed almost $60 billion over the next 20 years to building industrial wind turbines and solar power generators. In the case of wind turbines, the construction of hundreds of plants across the province has given rise to major conflicts between those who stand to benefit from the huge electricity ratepayer subsidies and those whose health and property values are threatened. Ontario’s electricity generation capacity is already 40% above the peak requirements, and yet the provincial government continues to contract for more power. When those concerned about the economic, social and health impacts of adding so much “green” energy complain, they are often confronted with an argument expressed with almost religious conviction. Supporters of green energy insist we need it to “save the planet” from the threat of climate change.

There are many reasons to question the scientific arguments behind the thesis that human beings are responsible for what may be “catastrophic” climate change 100 years hence. The arguments about this are highly technical. Instead, let us examine two things:

  • The contrast between various experts’ estimates of the reductions needed in world greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and the estimates of actual and projected emissions
  • The magnitude of the emissions reductions that can be achieved in Ontario in the global context

The primary source of expert advice to governments concerning climate change is the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It advises the governments that are party to the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change and subsequent related agreements. In the 2009 Copenhagen Accord, these parties agreed that, to avoid what they considered a dangerous level of “global warming”, it would be necessary to limit increases in the average global temperature to no more than two degrees Celsius relative to pre-industrial times. To accomplish this, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, now about 395 parts per million (ppm), would have to be reduced to at least 350 ppm. As stated by the United States Presidential Climate Change Action Project and other sources, this means that global emissions would have to decline by 60% by 2050 and that emissions in the industrialized countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) would have to decline by 80%. These reductions are from current levels. In the case of industrialized countries, an 80% reduction from current levels by 2050 means the virtual elimination of fossil fuel use, except in certain areas where this is technically impossible. The advocates insist that nothing less than this reduction is enough.

The best current estimates of present and future global energy supply and demand and related emissions are those produced by the United States Energy Information Administration (EIA) and the OECD International Energy Agency (IEA). Both organizations issued updated projections in 2013. The EIA analysis uses a “reference case” that includes assumptions concerning economic growth but not changes in current policies and laws; its projection period runs to 2040. The IEA analysis uses a reference case that assumes significant changes in policies and laws, especially in the OECD, to reduce GHG emissions; its projection period runs to 2035.

The results of the two studies are similar in several respects. Notably:

  • Both reports project that world consumption of energy and the related GHG emissions will grow significantly. The EIA projects world carbon dioxide emissions to rise from 31.2 billion metric tons in 2010 to 45.5 billion metric tons in 2049, an increase of 46%. The IEA projects that carbon dioxide emissions will grow by 20% to 37.2 billion metric tons by 2035.
  • Both reports project that most of the energy demand and emissions growth will occur in the non-OECD countries. According to the EIA, energy use in non-OECD countries grows by 90%, in OECD countries by 17%. According to the IEA, 96% of the growth in world energy demand and emissions occurs in non-OECD countries; the OECD accounts for only 4%.
  • Coal is the most GHG-intensive fuel. However, both studies foresee significant increases in coal consumption, especially in China and India.
  • Fossil fuels represent 82% of the global energy mix, the same as they did 25 years ago. This share reduces to 75% in 2035, but fossil fuels remain the dominant source of the world’s energy.

In short, the best available expert projections of global energy use and GHG emissions shows that these are moving significantly counter to the direction that the IPCC regards as essential. This growth is driven by the desire of people in the developing countries to attain higher levels of income, economic development and wellbeing, much of which is directly tied to increased energy use.

Radical solutions

Those who are persuaded that climate change mitigation must be pursued at all costs to “save the planet” are left with radical solutions. James Hansen, the former head of the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space administration who is now perhaps the most prominent advocate for dramatic action, has recommended immediately taking steps to “leave all fossil fuels in the ground” which presumably means banning all future exploration, production, distribution and consumption of coal, oil and natural gas either through regulation or taxation (Hansen recommends a tax of up to $1000 per tonne of carbon dioxide, but is willing to contemplate a beginning tax of $15 per tonne, rising $10 per year indefinitely.). Unfortunately for Dr. Hansen, the world is not listening.

In these circumstances, people in Canada and the rest of the OECD have to question the rationale for costly emission-reduction measures that have relatively modest effects. To illustrate this point, if one takes as accurate the EIA estimate of 31.2 billion metric tons of annual global GHG emissions in 2010, and accepts the need for a 60% reduction in that level by 2050, this would mean that the world would have to achieve an 18.7 billion metric ton reduction in 36 years. If one further assumes that the non-OECD countries will continue their present path of emissions growth related to their desire for economic development and improvement in standards of living, then all OECD countries could suddenly disappear from the planet, thereby emitting not one whiff of CO2, and the target still would not be attained!

Those who believe the science may perhaps be persuaded that it makes far more sense to give up on mitigation approaches and concentrate instead on investing in adapting to what they view as inevitable climate change impacts. The investments may be large, but they could be tailored to the specific effects that occur and they would be within each country’s control. Those of us who fundamentally question the science and economic projections of the IPCC have less cause for concern.

There are those who argue that, even if the emissions reductions that are likely to occur are nowhere close to enough to affect the (alleged) path of global warming, the people of Ontario have a “moral obligation” to incur those costs anyway. The author admits to being completely baffled by this logic, but it may be useful to examine just how much, in fact, Ontario’s $40 billion in renewable wind and solar generation is likely to affect global emissions.

Canada’s share

According to the United Nations Statistics Division, Canada’s share of greenhouse gas emissions represents 1.8 % of global emissions.  Environment Canada’s National Emissions Inventory shows that electricity and heat generation from all provinces totals 98 megatonnes (Mt) of GHGs, or 14% of Canada’s total emissions of 690 Mt. Emissions from Ontario’s electricity production and consumption represent about 15 % of those from all electricity in Canada. Therefore, all of Ontario’s electricity-related emissions represent 0.039% of global emissions. If Ontario ceased to produce and consume all electricity overnight, it would reduce global emissions by less than one twenty-fifth of one per cent.

In fact, all of the renewable energy associated with Ontario’s Green Energy Plan would only decrease Ontario’s electricity emissions by 20% in the most optimistic scenario. In other words, this would reduce global emissions by 0.008%.

However, there are reasons to question whether the massive investment in renewable generation sources would have been needed to achieve even this small effect. The Fraser Institute published a report in 2013 entitled, “Environmental and Economic Consequences of Ontario’s Green Energy Act”. Here is an excerpt from that report:

“Electricity supply is divided into base-load capacity, which comes from sources like hydroelectric and nuclear that deliver a fixed amount of power that cannot easily be adjusted up or down on short notice, and peak capacity, which can be scaled up and down as system demand changes through the day. Ontario power demand currently averages about 18,000 MW and reaches a maximum annual peak of about 26,000 MW. Using figures from the Ontario Power Authority and the Independent Electricity System Operator, the Provincial Auditor General projects average demand to decline to about 16,000 MW and peak demand to fall to about 24,000 MW. Nuclear and hydroelectric facilities alone currently provide 18,000 MW of base-load capacity. In addition, Ontario has 9,500 MW of gas capacity as well as 4,500 MW of the coal-fired power plants much of which is unused. The AGO estimates Ontario will have at least 10,000 MW of surplus generating capacity through 2025.”

In other words, Ontario’s electrical generating capacity already so far exceeds needs that the coal-burning power plants (the principal sources of GHG emissions) could have been shut down without adding a single new wind or solar plant.

The net effect of these plants on reducing Ontario GHG emissions was zero.

Robert Lyman

Ottawa, March 2014

North Gower readers write: “no qualms about suing”

08 Saturday Mar 2014

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Many area residents wrote to Farmers Forum after last month’s edition in which North Gower resident and wind power proponent Ed Schouten made remarks about wind “farms.”

Four were published; we reproduce them here.

Will sue for property loss

I intend to get my house appraised now and re-appraised if wind turbines are erected. I will have no qualms about suing both the property owner and Prowind for loss of property value at the very least. I hope others will be prepared to do the same.*

Julian Hughson, North Gower

*Blog editor note, Oh, they are, they are. Ottawa Wind Concerns has legal counsel on retainer and we have already notified Prowind of the intent to take any and all legal actions available.

Need more wind power studies

It sounds to me like a match made in heaven. Companies offer always cash-starved farms substantial funds to be allowed to build windmills on their farms. They sell the power to Ontario Hydro for enormous amounts of taxpayer money. The farmer is happy with his steady income, the windmill company is happy with its profits. But there are a lot of questions that still need answers about the effects of these monsters. In Europe and the United States, most of them are offshore or in isolated areas. Let’s get some reports from other countries of wind farms located near homes, schools and farms.

J.A. Fournier, North Gower

Blog editor: first of all, the wind power developer had a contract with the Ontario Power Authority or OPA to sell power under the Feed In Tariff subsidy program (which is now halted–a new program begins this year). Second, the farm owners, many unwittingly, gave away many rights to their land as part of the contracts including first right of refusal. An Ontario mayor noted at the August AMO conference that in effect, farmers sold their land for the lease amount. The contracts also contain “gag” clauses so that if the farm owners experience health problems or are disturbed by the noise and vibration, they are not allowed to speak of it. Last, there are problems the world over with wind turbine noise. Denmark alone has 170 community groups, and citizens are opposed in the UK, Germany, France, and the US. The global wind lobby has gone to great lengths to discredit these groups, and currently has a campaign which is based on the idea that the activities of community groups themselves are causing symptoms among turbine neighbours.

My retirement affected by wind turbines

As a resident of the proposed wind farm in North Gower, I will be adversely affected as we will be one of the homes closest to the turbines (the minimum distance is 550 meters). I will no longer be able to enjoy my back deck as the turbines will be far closer to my home than the home of the farm planning on erecting the turbines. Along with the health issues associated with turbines, so will our planned retirement of selling our property be adversely affected. The farmer from this area who said keeping the wind farm small will have no negative effects is, oh, so wrong.

Turbines in Europe a dismal failure

I would never have purchased this home if we had known there would be a turbine so close. Never, never, never. Being of European background, I have kept up-to-date on the fall of turbine desire there. They are a dismal failure. Germany, a country on the front line of energy efficiency, has decided not to erect (more) turbines but is instead returning to coal-fired generation.

What more need I say?

Gerry Courtney, North Gower

North Gower wind project is too big

Farmer Ed Schouten’s comment that the Brinston wind power project (it’s not a “farm”) could be a test case for others is interesting: with 6,700 megawatts of wind power already contracted for in Ontario, I think we have quite enough “test cases.”

What we do have is people sick from the environmental noise near wind power projects at Kincardine, Amaranth and Ridgetown, to name a few. It’s really quite simple: if the noise is so loud people can’t sleep, they become ill.

1,200 of his neighbours signed a petition against the project, that was accepted by Ottawa

I disagree with Mr Schouten’s claim that keeping a wind power project small avoids problems. The one proposed by the  Germany-based developer for his farm was a 20-megawatt power plant with eight turbines close to 1,000 families. That’s not “small” in my books. It’s also the reason why over 1,200 of his neighbours signed a petition against the project, which was accepted by Ottawa City Council.

With lawsuits over property values on the rise, and concerns about the health of livestock exposed to the turbine noise and vibration, Mr. Schouten must have a few concerns he hopes the Brinston project will allay.

The question that remains, however, is why is Ontario doing this? Why are we paying millions for wind power projects that have such a high impact on Ontario communities, for power we don’t need?

Ontario never did a cost-benefit analysis on wind power, the Auditor General complained in 2011. That was the real “test case” we needed.

Jane Wilson, North Gower

Brinston not a test case, community not lab rats

08 Saturday Mar 2014

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

You may recall that in last month’s edition of Farmers Forum, North Gower-Richmond farm owner Ed Schouten (the proponent in the North Gower wind power project) said he looked forward to the start-up on the project at Brinston, as it would serve as a “test case” for people who had doubts about how great wind power is.

Lots of letters flew in to the Editor, and we will reproduce them all. First though, the letter from Brinston resident Leslie Disheau who wants to put Mr Schouten straight on a few issues.

Brinston divided on wind turbines

Letter, Farmers Forum March 2014

I am going to begin with setting the record straight on the use of the term “wind farm.” This term is a skewed way of making the industrialization of farming practices more palatable to the general public by international wind development companies.

Farming practices and the farming industry have quietly moved into industrial practices while still enjoying the government subsidy/benefit programs to help sustain their bottom line, and keep their competitive edge with fluctuating world markets.

These healthy government subsidy/benefit programs are not available to any other sector of industry in Ontario. If you are going to industrialize then you should have to play by the same industry standards and requirements which currently govern all industry in Ontario.

Farm lands are now being used to host electricity producing machines, not growing food to feed cities. So let us term these industrial electricity projects correctly and allow this industry to be taxed accordingly, and without lucrative FIT contracts for 20 years.

We, the people in Brinston, Dixon’s Corners and Hulbert, directly affected by the siting of 10 30-megawatt industrial wind turbines, have every right to be upset and speak out. The Green Energy Act has stripped us of our rights to say “no” and our right to protect the well-being of our families; allowed for the devaluation of our homes; permits wildlife to be killed, harmed and harrassed; and takes top qality farmland out of food production. The rural community of Brinston is very much living with and feeling divided by this South Branch wind project.

“I am not a test animal, and my community is not a ‘test case,’ Mr Schouten”

I personally take great offence to Mr. Schouten’s comment that the “Brinston turbines will be a good test case for the rest of the area.” I am not a test animal. I am a person and my community should not be referred to as a “test case,” like a lab study.

As for Mr. Winslow’s statement about “negative publicity” and “far too much emotion,” I speak up with passion because I value my family’s health and well-being, take pride in my home and property, and understand what stewardship of the land and animals really means. I get emotional when someone makes a decision, without my consent, which directly changes life for my family and the community.

I have spent three years reading and looking at the research for both sides of this issue, from around the world, and can say I sit on the negative side of the fence–I made an educated decision to do so.

Leslie Disheau

Brinston, Ontario

The writer has one 3-MW turbine 836 meters from the front of her family home, and another 900 meters from the rear.The South Branch project, initiated by Germany-based Prowind,and purchased by US-based EDP, began operations March 4.

BrinstonTurbine BaseAerial shot of base for one of the Brinston turbines, prior to construction last year. Brinston is 30 minutes south of Ottawa, Ontario

 

Parker Gallant on wind turbines and farming: who got the money?

07 Friday Mar 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

Farmers Forum, March 2014 edition

 

Wind turbines: Divisive and useless or welcome easy money?
By Parker Gallant
I recently had the pleasure of being invited to do a presentation to the Prescott Federation of Agriculture by dairy farmer Reg Presley. The presentation explained what is behind the four lines on our electricity bills. Judging by the looks on faces, questions and comments afterwards, I think some of those at the OFA meeting were shocked by what we are all paying for.
Traveling through rural Ontario we frequently encounter strange sights now appearing with regularity. Those sights are industrial wind turbines soaring up to 500 feet, sometimes spinning and other times idle. Meant to displace fossil fuels (coal) those turbines were touted as producers of clean electricity which would save us health costs. That was the spin.
My interest in energy didn’t come from viewing the turbines. It came from a nasty electricity bill received from Hydro One for our place in Prince Edward County; a farming community. The research I put into the electricity system reflected on my banking background and why my bill had jumped. As I delved into the way the system functioned I was shocked to see Ontario had implemented a “renewable energy” strategy with no cost/benefit study! It was initially launched by Dwight Duncan when he sat in the Energy Minster’s chair and later expanded by the passing of the Green Energy Act under George Smitherman.
What I found was the move to renewable energy drove up the cost of what all Ontarians tend to regard as a “necessity of life.” Wind generated electricity presents itself in the middle of the night and in the spring and fall; periods when demand is lowest. Also, their intermittent nature means they need rampable back-up power and gas plants (including those moved at a cost of $1.1 billion) fill that gap. Because wind and solar generators get “first to the grid” rights our grid manager is often faced with conditions that may cause blackouts or brownouts.
In those situations Ontario is forced to either export power at a loss, spill hydro, steam off nuclear or pay wind and solar developers for NOT generating.
Those events cause our bill for electricity to rise and recent estimates indicate our loss on just the export side costs Ontario ratepayers in excess of $1 billion annually.
With another 3,700 MW of wind and 1,200 MW of solar to be added to Ontario’s supply those costs will continue to grow! The Energy Minister recently said rates will increase 33 % over the next three years.
Things looked differently a few years ago when Premier McGuinty in a speech stated: “we know the price of fossil fuels will keep going up, while we know the price of renewable technologies will keep coming down. We know where the world is going. And we choose to lead, not follow.”
As a result wind and solar developers swept through Ontario, signing up farmers, promising cash payments for simply allowing them to erect a wind turbine occupying less than an acre of land. Leases were signed and the money started to flow. Early signers found out later they should have held out for more money. Later on lessors discovered those turbines created friction with their neighbours and even family feuds because of the “global warming” debate. The leases locked in farmers, controlling future actions such as severing land, exiting the lease or negotiating early termination; meaning the friction(s) could not be cured.
Those turbines also kill birds and bats; bats that no longer consume insects that infect or destroy crops and result in the need to use pesticides. The estimated cost of pesticide use by Science Magazine as a result of bat kills by wind turbines in Pensylvania was $74 per acre.
Last year I discovered my neighbour had optioned some of his farmland to a wind developer and we chatted about it extensively, discussing the cash payments versus the down side of wind turbines.
Former Premier McGuinty’s musings have not materialized as that “cash crop” to benefit farmers but has wound up in the wind and solar developer pockets while the rest of us hand it over. The lead McGuinty envisaged has been a blow to our pocketbooks. Perhaps we should have simply been a follower.
Parker Gallant is a Toronto-based former Royal Bank vice-president, who has retirement property in Prince Edward County. He is vice president of Ontario Wind Concerns, an anti-wind power umbrella group.

Farmers at London Farm show: NOT in favour of wind turbines

07 Friday Mar 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , ,

Farmers object to wind turbines, survey says

By Blair Andrews
LONDON — The debate over wind turbines in Western Ontario is generating some lively opinions among farmers with a clear majority strongly opposed, a Farmers Forum survey suggests.
A random survey of 50 farmers at the London Farm Show on March 5, found that 58 % disapproved of wind turbines.
Just 20 % of survey respondents approved and 22 % were neutral on the issue. Among those who had an opinion, farmers opposed to turbines outnumbered those who approved by almost three-to-one.
Almost 80 % of those who disapprove believe the wind turbines are too costly and are an inefficient source of electricity.
“The capital cost of erecting the wind turbine in the first place is far in excess of what I would think a reasonable return on the investment would be in terms of the energy that is generated by one of those,” said Harold Jackson, a cash crop farmer from Middlesex County.
“I don’t believe the economics are there; this is a money grab,” said a Brant County cash crop farmer who noted that he has worked near wind turbines. “I believe there are health issues. I don’t care what the experts say.”
A few other farmers were concerned about losing farmland to wind turbines.
“The power belongs in the city where it’s being demanded,” said Tyler Vollmershausen, a cash crop farmer from Oxford County. “We’re on this infrastructure across the countryside and the power is being demanded in the city. Why are we producing it out here?”
“The windmills don’t belong on farmland,” said Lambton County cash crop and livestock farmer Peter Aarts. “We have solar panels but the solar panels are on the roof and nobody notices that they’re there.”
Other reasons for disapproval included decreasing farmland values, adverse health effects, their appearance, and that the issue pits farmer against farmer.
Of those who approve of wind turbines, their reasons were evenly split between generating income for the farm and producing a renewable energy source.
“I have no problem with them. It’s green energy,” said Gary Van Leeuwen, a cash crop farmer from Elgin County. “It’s pricey, but we have to look long term, not short term.”
“I am against nuclear and I’m very concerned about the storage facilities for nuclear waste in the Kincardine area,” said Huron County cash crop farmer Uli Hundt.
Middlesex County cash crop farmer Charlie Paas is planning to earn some income from a wind turbine when one is built on his farm this year.
“You can complain about changing the landscape, but you stick a house somewhere you change the landscape too,” said Paas.
“I approve of them in the right location,” said Wayne Cunningham, who likes the aspect of producing green energy.
But the Wellington County cash crop farmer echoed some of the concerns of those who disapprove.
“I don’t approve of them going into prime farmland. We’re losing too much agricultural land every year.”

Read the full story here

Amherst Island community groups files lawsuit

07 Friday Mar 2014

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

The wind turbines on Wolfe Island are partially obscured by blowing snow during a cold and windy winter day in Kingston recently.<br /> IAN MACALPINE/KINGSTON WHIG-STANDARD/QMI AGENCY

The wind turbines on Wolfe Island are partially obscured by blowing snow during a cold and windy winter day in Kingston recently. IAN MACALPINE/KINGSTON WHIG-STANDARD/QMI AGENCY

WIND TURBINES

Amherst Island group files lawsuit 22

By Elliot Ferguson, Kingston Whig-Standard

Thursday, March 6, 2014 6:20:44 EST PM

AMHERST ISLAND – The group opposed to a wind energy development on Amherst Island is going to court to challenge a recent government ruling that permitted the project to move ahead.
In an application filed Thursday with the Superior Court of Justice in Toronto, the Association to Protect Amherst Island (APAI) asked for a judicial review of the Jan. 2 decision by the Ministry of the Environment to declare complete the Renewable Energy Approval (REA) submitted by Windlectric Inc., the company seeking to build the Amherst Island wind project.
Windlectric plans to build a 75-megawatt wind energy project on the 70-square-kilometre Amherst Island, involving up to 36 turbines.
The January ruling meant the project was entering the technical review stage, during which the different reports filed by the company in support of the development are reviewed.
An REA deemed complete also allowed the project to proceed into 65 days of public comment, a phase set to conclude March 8.
In its application, which named Windlectric, the director of environmental approvals and the provincial ministries of the environment, natural resources and tourism, culture and sport, APAI stated the REA did not contain key components.
“The decision to deem the project application complete surprised the Association as substantial evidence as to why the project should not proceed to the technical review stage of the process,” the association stated in a release Thursday.
The association stated the application for the review is “consistent” with the position of Loyalist Township.
In October, Loyalist Township council passed a motion that called for the rejection of “incomplete” project applications.
APAI said the technical details of the Windlectric REA were far from complete.
The items missing included…

Read the full story here.

Our note: errors are not uncommon in these applications. The application Prowind filed for the South Branch project south of Ottawa originally had the project in the wrong county! Communities are taking a hard look at these documents, and consulting with lawyers.

Email us at ottawawindconcerns@gmail.com

Lisa MacLeod roars on the Green Energy Act!

06 Thursday Mar 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Yesterday was the occasion for debate on the Green Energy Act, as the government is now scrambling to correct its domestic input policy—illegal as determined by the World economic regulatory body.

Nepean-Carleton MPP and PC Energy Critic Lisa MacLeod covered the gamut of problems with the Green Energy Act in her speech. You may read the full account here (recommended). An excerpt follows:

…But if they want to talk about children’s health, I’ll talk about a child’s health. I’ll talk about Madi Vanstone, who every day we’ve brought up in the assembly here. I can’t help but think that the Ontario that I live in, the Ontario that I’m raising my daughter in, is spending $22 billion for 1% of energy to make Liberal friends rich when little girls in this province who need life-saving drugs can’t get them. And why can’t she get them? Because this Premier said it costs too much. She said that it costs too much; we couldn’t afford it. We could afford to make Mike Crawley a rich man, we can afford to make NextEra a rich company and we can ensure that Samsung basically has a seat at the cabinet table here, but apparently our government cannot and will not choose to support a child who needs help. That’s the reality that we’re in in Ontario today. People can’t understand it. It was well documented, I thought, by Christina Blizzard. I thought she laid out the case on that quite clearly, and I thought that she pointed out what most people in Ontario are saying.
You look at the cost of power now—and I had the opportunity to speak to the supply motion, I guess it was a week ago. I talked about the opportunity I had to visit many of my colleagues’ ridings and talk to many people who are in their communities, and we talked about the high cost of energy and how that is hurting the people of this province and hurting manufacturers, and we talked about what our plan would be.
We’ve written a number of white papers. Some of them were just, effectively, ideas that we put forward that we’ll run on; others were ideas for discussion that we’ve talked about. But, very clearly, people are looking for a rational solution to the mismanagement by the government.
We’ve put forward a number of, I think, very thoughtful ideas and very sensible ideas to review not only the existing Green Energy Act—I think we’ve been very clear that we would repeal it—but we also talked about looking at some of the entities that we have in Ontario, like the OPG and Hydro One, monetizing them to bring more accountability. We know that there are some very serious and straightforward concerns there. We know, for example, that we’re exporting about $1 billion worth of power. …
You think about this: He has just acknowledged in this House that to create 1.1% of power is $22 billion. They had to acknowledge, albeit it was the Auditor General who forced them, that it was $1.1 billion for them to save five seats. With that amount of waste and that amount of mismanagement, we could not only eradicate our deficit, but we could make significant investments into our communities in health care and education, and we would still have power that we wouldn’t have to export. A novel idea, Speaker, but that is the reality; it is the truth, and it is something that we have said consistently—and the only party to do so since 2009.
That’s why we stand here day in and day out. We stand for the people in Strathroy and Stratford. We talk to the people in Cobourg, the people in Oxford and the people in Barry’s Bay. We talk about the people who are opposing these high subsidies and who are opposing these invasions on their land. We talk to them. We ask them to stay in Ontario and make sure that they continue to support us so that we can change this.
…
Let me be abundantly clear, Speaker: This is a government who is too concerned with its own ideology, and too concerned with its buddies that they could make a little bit more rich, that they had no concern whatsoever about the people paying the bill; that they have no concern whatsoever of the broader implications in an international trade war that they have now thrust us into. They don’t care, Speaker. They didn’t do their job at the beginning.
They’re not doing their job now, they didn’t do their job then, and everybody in Ontario is paying for it.

Amherst Island wind project “not financially viable”

05 Wednesday Mar 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

Wind power on Amherst Island: not financially viable

Posted on March 5, 2014

Members of the community on Amherst Island (who, it must be said, are doing anything and everything to protect their community from a proposed wind power plant) have undertaken a financial analysis of the power project.

Note that this is something the government of Ontario has never done, despite the Auditor General’s chiding of them to do this in 2011. The result of this analysis? Wind power doesn’t make any sense.

Read the report at http://freewco.wordpress.com/2014/03/05/wind-power-on-amherst-island-not-financially-viable/

Lyman: Ontario’s electricity prices continue to rise

03 Monday Mar 2014

Posted by in Ottawa, Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Here from energy economist Robert Lyman, an analysis of what’s going on with the price of electricity in Ontario… and what’s to come.

The Ontario Electricity Tragedy – The Numbers for 2013

The average resident of Ontario has a difficult time even understanding his or her electricity bill, let alone comprehending all the costs borne by the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), the Crown Corporation that manages provincial electricity supply and demand.

Fortunately for the rest of us, one man spends a lot of time monitoring IESO’s purchases and costs. His name is Scott Luft, and he reports his analysis on a blog entitled “Cold Air.” He takes publicly available data from IESO and translates it into something meaningful. Two tables recently published by Scott Luft tell us a great deal about what has happened to the “commodity cost” of electricity in Ontario since 2006, and especially about the breakdown of costs in 2013. The commodity cost is the charges that IESO pays for the actual power that it purchases from generators plus additional costs that are added on by order of the provincial government. It excludes the cost of electricity transmission and distribution and other special charges like HST.

Read the full article here.Ontario’s Electricity Tragedy by the Numbers (revised)

The unreliable renewables (or, the taxpayer gets it again)

28 Friday Feb 2014

Posted by in Renewable energy, Wind power

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, ,

Here from today’s Financial Post, Peter Foster on the International Energy Agency, and its report on renewable power sources.

Peter Foster: The International Energy Agency backs unreliable renewables

Republish Reprint

Peter Foster | February 28, 2014 8:35 AM ET
More from Peter Foster

The self-serving misrepresentation of capitalism that was at the heart of both nationalism/fascism and Communism is still with us, only now it’s gone global, is called sustainable development, and is focused on climate change.

Sean Gallup/Getty ImagesThe self-serving misrepresentation of capitalism that was at the heart of both nationalism/fascism and Communism is still with us, only now it’s gone global, is called sustainable development, and is focused on climate change.

At the International Energy Agency,  ”Variable Renewable Energy”  is Orwellian Newspeak for “Unreliable Renewable Energy” 

It was depressing to read this week of Caisse de depot head Michael Sabia regurgitating the foundational myths of economic nationalism: that markets are too short-term, and that takeovers by foreign “tourist” corporations should be resisted.

That was the precisely the kind of thinking that, a generation ago, got us PetroCanada and the National Energy Program. Petrocan relentlessly spouted that its perspective was broader and longer than that of its market rivals. The result was a carnival of waste and a gusher of red ink. The NEP got every far-sighted projection dead wrong. Government-promoted takeovers sunk the acquirers, not the targets.

How soon we forget, if, that is, we ever knew. The self-serving misrepresentation of capitalism that was at the heart of both nationalism/fascism and Communism is still with us, only now it’s gone global, is called sustainable development, and is focused on climate change. This allegedly demands a carefully-coordinated decarbonization of the global economy, balanced with wise guidance of poor country development.

How’s that going?

A report this week from the International Energy Agency – The Power of Transformation – Wind, Sun and the Economics of Flexible Power Systems  – is a classic example of the immutability of bureaucratic pretension and its infinite ability to explain away failure, even as it promotes more of the same.

Here’s the opening of the report’s Executive Summary:

Wind power and solar photovoltaic (PV) are expected to make a substantial contribution to a more secure and sustainable energy system. However, electricity generation from both technologies is constrained by the varying availability of wind and sunshine. This can make it challenging to maintain the necessary balance of electricity supply and consumption at all times. Consequently, the cost effective integration of variable renewable energy (VRE) has become a pressing challenge for the energy sector.

Translation: renewable energy is a practical disaster.

Everywhere, policies based on subsidization of “technologies of the future” are in crisis.  “Variable Renewable Energy,” VRE, is Orwellian Newspeak for “Unreliable Renewable Energy,” URE.

Unintended results have been piling up like a mountain of biomass, hoisting prices, undermining manufacturing, and creating fuel poverty among consumers, including now even those in Germany, which is still Europe’s richest country despite some of the continent’s most perverse energy policies.

As the summary says, wind and solar are obviously unreliable because the wind does not always blow, nor the sun shine. They are also very expensive. Solving the latter problem is always just over the horizon, not least because those short-sighted agents of the market keep coming up with new and cheaper sources of fossil fuel, such as shale gas, a development which far-sighted bureaucrats somehow failed to spot.

So what’s the IEA’s answer to the unreliability problem? Bigger and better-coordinated plans, bolstered by positive verbiage. According to the report, any country can reach high shares of wind and solar power “cost-effectively.” All that’s required is to forget history, economics and, while we’re about it, developments in climate science. The science is settled.

According to IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven “Integrating high shares of variable renewables is really about transforming our power systems.” What is required is a “change of perspective,” which is to say the same old perspective dressed up in new imperial costume. Which is to say, the same old new imperial costume.

You see, the problem was never really unreliability per se, it was that wind and solar were introduced piecemeal on top of all those awful “business as usual” systems. So what is needed is transformation of energy systems “as a whole.” You know, like the Soviets’ Gosplan.

The IEA notes that wind and solar now account for just 3 percent of world electricity generation. However, a few bold leaders generate 10-30% of their electricity, albeit spottily and expensively, from wind and sun. These champions include Germany, Italy, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, and Denmark. All are struggling with policy perversity. Germany’s abandonment of nuclear has – due to aforementioned wind and solar unreliability – led to a boom in one of the “dirtiest” power sources, brown coal.

The IEA grudgingly admits that renewables have wreaked havoc among “incumbent generators.” Where the transformational challenge comes is in working out how to reduce the existing economic part of the system while boosting investment in the new non-economic (not to mention climatically pointless) part. What “flexibility” thus means is the flexibility to accommodate dumb ideas, and in particular to execute the policy pretzel positions necessary to kill those “inflexible” (economic) parts of the system. This will require a “collaborative effort by policy makers and the industry.” Translation: the taxpayer will get screwed. Again.

Still, the important thing is to keep green bureaucratic dreams alive, aided by those positive semantics. The IEA wants the world to deploy wind and solar “in a system-friendly way using state-of-the art technology, improving the day-to-day operation of power systems and markets, and finally investing in additional flexible resources.”

I wonder why they never thought of that before.

…

Read the full article here.