Industrial Wind Generation Demonstrates It’s True Colours

If one follows or occasionally looks at Ontario’s hourly generation and took a peek at IESO’s Generators Output and Capability Output for Sunday July 3, 2022 their immediate reaction (should they regard wind as intermittent and unreliable) might have been; “aha, as I suspected, wind is a very fickle generation source”! 

That view would have been particularly obvious if they noted; as demand increased over the opening hours of the day wind fell flat and hour 10 highlighted that failure. At that hour they couldn’t even come close to generating IESO’s forecast of 101 MW producing only 17.8% (18 MW) of the forecast.  IESO’s forecast at that hour was only 2.3% of Winds Total Available Capacity (4,485 MW) shown on the report.

The hourly Ontario peak demand at Hour 10 was 14,070 MW so wind supplied 0.13% despite its total capacity representing 13% of all of our grid capacity as reported by IESO. Those Industrial Wind Turbines did that in spite of their favourable position under the contracts giving them “first-to-the-grid” rights!  

The IESO Crysler forecast and output for this 100 MW IWT project was respectively 18 MW but only 2 MW (11% of the forecast) were actually generated. The Crysler contract (for some unknown reason) was one of the few allowed to maintain its contract status under the first Ford government’s tenure as the ruling party in Ontario despite having had considerable pushback from the county prior to and after the election.  It recently gained “commissioned” status (awarded by IESO) but as one can see it joins the ranks of the others and fails to produce power when needed or forecast.

Hour 10 clearly demonstrates one of the many failures of IWT generation proving they are both intermittent and unreliable and absolutely need to be backed up by reliable fossil fuels in the form of natural gas generation which at hour 10 was generating 1192 MW! 

All those IWT (industrial wind turbines) ultimately do is increase the price of every kilowatt hour we consume.

Hopefully the second tenure voters have granted the Ford led government in Ontario will actually result in actions by them to eliminate the privileges granted to all companies owning those IWT! That would help reduce costs to ratepayers and taxpayers and reduce the harm they cause humans living in households near them along with their devastating effect on birds, bats and other nature related effects.

Why are Parasitic Universities Considered Charities?

Researching on the “web” occasionally presents information that can be shocking and one such event recently occurred.  Stumbling across a 267 page report titled “2021 Canadian Provincial Energy Efficiency Scorecard” and having a quick look one notes two logos on page 2 with one called “Efficiency Canada” and the other Carleton University.

As it turns out a visit to Efficiency Canada discloses it is housed at Carleton University’s Sustainable Energy Research Centre.  The site has a donate button stating it’s a unit of the Carleton Center for Sustainable Energy Research so a donation will presumably generate a tax receipt.* The site also has a “supporters” page and it is several of the usual “charitable foundations” handing out those tax-free dollars in full support of the UNIPCC and the “climate change” agenda and included; the Ivey Foundation, Toronto Atmospheric Fund, the McConnell Foundation, etc. etc.

The report on page 12 ranks the provinces and BC comes out on top followed by Quebec in second spot.  Newfoundland and Labrador rank last!  It is amusing that amongst the paraphernalia; the report lauds electric vehicles (72 mentions) while it castigates provinces for lack of electric “capacity savings” as a percentage of peak demand.  They fail to connect demand with charging EV which will raise demand for reliable electricity power! As one should suspect; emissions, climate change, net-zero and renewable energy are the theme throughout the report in order to reputedly show what the provinces must do to save the world!

On another note it is worth seeing how Carleton University brag  about being selected as one of the National Capital Region’s Top Employers (2022) and they list the reasons why but fail to mention compensation which may highlight why their employees think they are great.  Carleton University have 44.4% (1087) of their 2,445 employees on the Ontario Sunshine List earning over $100K annually.  If one does the math based on the CRA filing (April 30, 2021 year-end) the average compensation of ALL 2,445 employees is substantial. The CRA report notes: total compensation for all employees was $422,419,000.00 and $97,492,113.00 for part-time employees so deduct the latter and divide the amount by those 2,445 employees and you see the average for each employee is $132,935.00.

According to a recently released salary review: “Fully employed Canadians received an average yearly salary of around $54,630, Canada income statistics for 2020 reveal.” That statistic suggests the “average” Carleton University employee earns 2.4 times what the average Canadian worker does.

Carleton reported for 2020-21 they had “207 full time faculty members” and a “1:8 faculty to student ratio” which makes one wonder exactly what those other 2,238 employees are engaged in to justify their compensation?

Statistics Canada stated in 2018/19 there were 46,440 full-time academic teaching staff at Canadian public universities so we should hope the ratio of non-teaching staff is not the same as Carleton University.  If that was the case, the 11.8:1 ratio of teaching staff to other employees, would mean Canada’s 96 public universities would have almost 548,000 non-faculty staff costing taxpayers/students $72 billion dollars annually in compensation. 

On the latter note the CMEC (Council of Ministers of Education, Canada) claim: “Statistics Canada has reported that postsecondary institution revenue in 2018–19 increased to $41.5 billion (in 2001 constant dollars)”.  They also note 45.8% of postsecondary funding comes from the government (one assumes they actually mean taxpayers and the term, “government”, means Federal, Provincial and Municipal).  They go on to state 29.4% are student fees and the balance (24.8%) comes from donations, bequests, nongovernmental grants and sales of products and services.

The latter brings us back to the opening paragraph suggesting those donations, grants and bequests play a huge role in influencing our places of learning.  Much of this latter funding is specific to the objective of influencing the outcome of both the teaching process as well as favourable research supporting belief in “climate change, global warming, net-zero, global emissions” etc. etc. 

Even if the donations, grants, etc. are only 10% of the $41.5 billion they will have a profound effect on the educators seeking to keep those donations and grants coming even if they are non-believers in mankind’s ability to control the temperature.

Perhaps it’s time to reevaluate the education system with a particular focus on the postsecondary institutions and the reason for their “charitable” status!

*A search of the CRA file for Carleton University and a review of their Financial Statement does not detail where funds “specifically” came from with the exception of those “tax-receipted” (1.5% of Gross Revenue) but their financial statement disclosed they received $69.5 million for “Research Grants and Contracts” for their April 30, 2021 year and that represented just over 10% of their gross revenue.

Tracking the Evolution of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Back on December 14, 1996 when Terence Corcoran was a journalist for the Globe and Mail’s Report on Business (ROB) section they published an article he wrote titled “Just say no to Rio target”. Twenty-six years later it is worth re-reading the article bearing in mind the continuing and unfolding debacle it started the developed countries on shortly after the Rio Earth Summit of 1992!

Here it is:

ROB Column The Globe and Mail TERENCE CORCORAN December 14, 1996, 

Just say no to Rio target

CANADA will not meet the greenhouse gas emissions target agreed to at the Rio Earth Summit of 1992. Thank goodness. If Ottawa and the provinces had tried to force us to live up to the unreal energy consumption target former prime minister Brian Mulroney signed on to four years ago during a Green binge, the Canadian economy would be in bad shape today.

To meet the target, Canada would have to reduce carbon emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. According to the latest sophisticated computer simulations and forecasts — which are invariably wrong, by the way — Canadian industries and consumers will emit about 500 megatons of carbon in the year 2000, about 9 per cent more than we did in 1990. To meet the targets, therefore, Canada would have to cut energy use by about 10 per cent, a $20-billion economic hit that would significantly lower growth  and employment.

Not meeting the target is, in any case, almost totally irrelevant. Canada is not, as Environment Minister Sergio Marchi said the other day, “behind the eight ball” over the target — unless we insist on shooting it at ourselves. Regardless of the spin put on the target by environment ministers and writers, the target will not and should not be met for several powerful reasons. In the first place, the summit agreement is not legally binding. We can just say no. The targets never had any legitimacy in Canada anyway.

The Rio Summit was an orgy of ultra vires agreement-signing and back-room politicking by thousands of bureaucrats and special interest groups. No Canadian other than lobbyists and envirocrats ever saw the Framework Convention on Climate Change that supposedly commits Canada to reduce carbon emissions by the year 2000. No public support was sought for the accord, no parliamentary hearings were held, nobody knew what the agreement meant, nobody even knew the thing had been signed.

No wonder Ottawa and the provinces can’t get Canadians to go along with the carbon taxes and other drastic measures proposed over the years. Most Canadians probably also suspect that the targets are arbitrary, and of no significance to the scientific problem they’re intended to resolve. As author Gregg Easterbrook said in A Moment on the Earth: “Will the goal of the treaty, stabilization of carbon emissions at the 1990 level, prevent global warming? The answer is: Not a snowball’s chance in, well, Alberta, should the warming occur.”

Note that last phrase: “Should the warming occur” is still the operative cautionary principle surrounding global warming. Despite the reams of material and reports, the scientific basis for predicting that human energy consumption will cause a significant increase in temperature, or that temperature increases are necessarily bad for human life, remains highly uncertain. But even if we assume the worst, that warming is something that should raise a global call for action, it makes little sense to load a country like Canada with major regulatory burdens and growth-hindering taxes. Canada’s share of the world’s energy market is minuscule by any measure that’s reasonably proportionate to the greenhouse gas problem.

Greens and envirocrats often make Canada look like a pollution hell by citing per capita energy consumption figures. For example, in 1995, Canadian per capita production of carbon dioxide was 4.4 tonnes, third highest in the world behind Australia and the United States. But there are many reasons for this, including our cold climate, heavy production of primary resources and secondary goods, and vast geography.

Another faulty measure of Canada’s role is the country’s share of energy production as a percentage of the global total: 2.2 per cent. The U.S. share is 25 per cent, China’s 13 per cent, France’s 1.7 per cent. However, this raw measure is also inadequate because it fails to take into account Canada’s geographic scale. Any proper assessment of Canada’s role in the global economy would have to incorporate the fact that Canada’s geographic land and air mass is massive.

A more accurate indicator of Canada’s relative role would be a measure based on the ratio of emissions to national air mass. Compared with other countries — France, the United States or just about any other nation — Canada’s share of world emissions as a proportion of total geography would be insignificant.Even if greenhouse warming is a looming crisis, assigning Canada emission reduction targets that are identical to other countries turns Canada into a sacrificial lamb to global environmentalism. Canada’s 30 million people could stop living tomorrow, and the trend of greenhouse warming would not change.”

Letter to the Editor December 20, 1996

Shortly after the article appeared Jack Gibbons, (current Chair of the OCAA) sent a letter to the Globe and Mail which they posted. Anyone following my blog and posts over the past number of years are aware of Gibbons push to shut down electricity generation from fossil and nuclear fuel in Ontario and replace it with unreliable and intermittent wind and solar.  The following is the Gibbons letter:

Toronto — According to Terence Corcoran, if Canada stabilizes its carbon dioxide emissions, our gross national product and our unemployment rate will rise (Just Say No To Rio Target — Dec. 14).

Fortunately for our planet’s life support systems and future generations, Mr. Corcoran is wrong.

Numerous studies have shown that there is not a tradeoff between substantial reductions in carbon dioxide emissions and economic growth. For example, the Ontario Carbon Dioxide Collaborative recently developed a strategy to reduce Ontario’s carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent by the year 2005 and reduce the energy costs of Ontario’s residential, commercial and industrial consumers.

According to the collaborative’s report, these dual objectives can be achieved by fuel switching from coal and oil to natural gas and by increasing our economy’s energy efficiency.

Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy.”

At this point it is worth a brief look at where Canada is today (2020 stats) versus 1996 in respect to total and per capita emissions. The Government of Canada post of emissions is only to the end of 2020 and notes they were 672 megatonnes and if one examines their chart it suggests in 1996, they were at the same level.  On a per capita basis however, they declined as the 1996 Census indicated Canada’s population was 28.8 million whereas in 2020 the population level had increased to 38.1 million.  Doing the math suggests Canada has reduced emissions by 24.5% on a per capita basis.

Greenhouse gas emissions, Canada, 1990 to 2020

If we look at China’s emissions over that same time frame they have increased from 3,503 megatonnes in 1996 to 10,668 megatonnes in 2020 for an increase of 7,165 megatonnes or 204.5%. Total global emissions in 2020 were 34,810 megatonnes so China’s emissions in 2020 represented 30.6% of global emissions but back in 1996 they represented only 14.5%.

As Canada has increased its “Annual Canadian Crude Oil Production by Crude Oil Typefrom 1996 daily production of 2,000 barrels per day to 4,687 barrels per day for an increase of 134% it would suggest our emissions should have shown a massive increase but they haven’t!

Perhaps it’s time our inane political leaders under Justin Trudeau and his minion, Jagmeet Singh, stop doing what they are trying to do to destroy the Canadian economy!

Summer High Demand and Wind Wimps Out

Summer weather in Ontario finally arrived and June 24th demonstrated how IWT (industrial wind turbines) frequently fall flat during those summer peak demand hours which reached 20,715 MW in hour 19.  During that hour wind produced a total of 291 MW which represented about 0.5% of their rated capacity and 0.01% of peak demand whereas Ontario’s natural gas generators produced 5,236 MW or over 25% of peak demand and just over 58 % of their rated capacity.

For the whole 24 hours IWT generation was a miserly 8,188 MW or 7.1% of total capacity reaching a high of 759 MW at hour 24 and a low of 48 MW at hour 9 demonstrating their intermittency and unreliable nature.

As a result of the IWT failures however the positive fact emerging was the HOEP (hourly Ontario energy price) averaged $71.90 for the full day meaning what we sold to Michigan and NY fetched a higher price than we normally receive.  During the peak hour we sold Michigan 1,116 MW and 485 MW to NY and the HOEP at that hour was $114.03/MWh so it came close to paying for that hour’s imported power of the 1,793 MW we purchased from Quebec.

The foregoing is just more proof that IWT should not benefit from their “first-to-the-grid” rights the McGuinty/Wynne Ontario Liberal Party bestowed on them via their lucrative contracts.

It is also further proof the “net-zero” acclimation signed on at COP -26 by the Federal Government under PM Justin Trudeau is a pipe dream as without the natural gas generation Ontario would have experienced blackouts yesterday.

The time has come for the recently re-elected Ford led provincial government to push back on the Federal commitments of “net-zero” and abandon any plans to add more unreliable IWT generation that will not only harm birds and bats and cause health problems in rural communities but also result in increased electricity prices as well as future blackouts.

Eco-Warriors are Strangling Energy Advances at a Cost to Consumers

Back in 1989 Greenpeace Canada lost it’s charitable status with the CRA and they kept trying to get it back without success but suddenly in late 2020 for some reason the CRA suddenly allowed the newly formed Greenpeace Canada Education Fund to have charitable status. The latter claim they are “focused on research, investigations and education” and reputedly have engaged “more than 17,000 students from K-12 and 328 presentations across Canada”.  One should presume those engagements have been to scare our children and grandchildren that the world will end unless we deal with “climate change”. 

As a coincidence an unrelated “Google” search led to finding an entity called the Green Energy Coalition which has been an “intervenor” with the Ontario Energy Board and on occasions; jointly with Environmental Defence.  Members of the GEC are none other than; Greenpeace Canada, David Suzuki Foundation, Sierra Club of Canada and the World Wildlife Fund.  The latter three plus Environmental Defence are all registered Charities and push the concept of eliminating fossil fuels and supporting expensive and unreliable renewable energy in the form of wind and solar.  One should note they are not the only eco-warrior intervenors pushing for the end of fossil fuel use.  Others include Pollution Probe, OSEA (Ontario Sustainable Energy Association), the Atmospheric Fund (created by the City of Toronto in 1991), Clean Air Council/Clean Air Partnership (funded by many municipal governments) and several others. One of the others is the School Energy Coalition Intervention Services (SEC) handled principally by the law firm Shepherd Rubenstein” who are also big supporters of “climate change”. The SEC (primary funding from school boards) intervenor awards alone for the April 1, 2019 – March 31, 2020 OEB year report totaled $840K which was 18% of all the awards for that year.

What becomes obvious is, our tax dollars; municipal, provincial and federal, not only pay for the Ontario Energy Board, school boards, etc. etc. via all the tax burdens we experience but also are used to create not-for-profits and charities that continually fight as intervenors and whose costs are also billed to us via our bills for both the electricity and natural gas, we use, which are also both taxed on our bills. 

A recent example was the intervenor costs associated with Enbridge’s effort to replace a deteriorating 19.8 kilometer pipeline (denied by the OEB) in Ottawa where intervenor costs for SEC were $63,319.55, for Pollution Probe $36,637.43 and $12,856.01 for Environmental Defence.

Not sure how the OEB can view intervention by those eco-warriors as a benefit to all of the households and businesses using electricity and natural gas in Ontario as we are also obliged to pick up those intervenor costs which has a multiplier effect on our tax costs. Just another tax on tax on tax!

This is but one example of why we should not wonder why Canada ranks so low in the OCED for getting things done due to our numerous regulations and the bureaucrats managing them! 

Perhaps the time has arrived to reduce our regulations and the numerous bureaucrats managing them!

What’s Best at emissions control; Trees, Wind Farms or Solar Farms?

It is amusing to do a Google search with the simple words:  trees cut down to have solar farms, or trees cut down to have wind farms. The former generates over 26 million hits and the latter over 88 million.  Examining just a few dozen from either search alerts you to how convoluted and twisted the eco-warriors are about the either/or arguments in respect to; clearing trees or not clearing them to erect those IWT (industrial wind turbines) or lay down solar panels!

Leading to the searches was an article out of India titled:  “Felling of trees for solar power plants in Jodhpur raises hackles of locals, environmentalists”.  What catches the eye is the sentence: “While solar parks are being encouraged for providing clean energy, environmentalists and local communities in Rajasthan are concerned over their impact on the natural vegetation of the desert state.”  Wow, are people finally catching on?

A few of the Searches Catching the Eye on Solar Farms

A Korea Herald article from April 2019 noted “Since the government strongly pushed for solar power business in 2017, 4,407 hectares of forest have been damaged, 15 times the space of the Yeouido area of Seoul,”. It noted 2 million trees had been cut down to make way for solar panels and went on to state it was the opposition politicians of the Liberty Korea Party’s view that renewable energy shouldn’t be a replacement for nuclear energy.  Interestingly enough a recent announcement indicated Korea will expand its nuclear power in order to meet its climate targets.

Another article from May 2015 said Six Flags amusement park were seeking to clear-cut 90 acres for a solar farm in Central New Jersey to power their park but they received push-back from several environmental groups including the New Jersey Conservation Foundation. Those environmental groups even filed a lawsuit against Six Flags and the solar developer.  Amusingly the article went on to note; “The lawsuit was filed on the same day as a legislative panel in Trenton approved an aggressive ramping up of how much electricity in the state must come from renewable energy, a goal endorsed by most environmental groups.” The lawsuit was somewhat effective and wasn’t settled until 2018 and Six Flags was only allowed to clear-cut 40 acres so had to cover some of their parking lots with solar panels.

Yet another article from February 7, 2019 announced Georgetown University of Maryland was planning to get nearly half of its electricity power from solar power and went on to note:  “However, the university drew ire when it was announced that the solar farm it would construct in Nanjemoy, Maryland, would require clearing 210 acres of forested land on a peninsula near the Potomac River.  That raised the hackles of the environmentalists resulting in push-back. As a result; “Bonnie Bick, the political chair of the Southern Maryland Sierra Cluban organization famous for fighting for emission reduction with renewable energy – said, “I’m very much in favor of solar, but the solar needs to be properly sited. The question is not forest or solar, it’s where is the proper place to install solar?”  The push-back worked and Maryland blocked the project which resulted in the University instead contracting with existing solar farms in Maryland to purchase power from them under a PPA (power purchase agreement).

 A few of the Searches Catching the Eye on Wind Farms

One of the early finds in the Google search was one titled “A green paradox: Deforesting the Amazon for wind energy in the Global North” and curiosity piqued; it was viewed. The sub-heading was more enticing as it stated: “A shift to wind energy is leaving a trail of destruction in Ecuador, with a brutal impact on Indigenous communities and fragile ecosystems”. Reading the article, one discovers that the “trail of destruction” has been caused by the demand for balsa wood, a major component in the construction of wind turbine blades due to it being flexible and yet hard, while also being both light and resilient.  The article states: “The increased demand led to the deforestation of virgin balsa in the Amazon basin, in what came to be known as ‘balsa fever’. Balseros began to illegally deforest virgin balsa from the islands and banks of the Amazonian rivers in an effort to overcome the shortage of cultivated wood. This has had a terrible impact on the Indigenous peoples of the Ecuadorian Amazon,” The demand for balsa has come from both Europe and China.  The article claimed; “In 2019, Ecuador exported $219m worth of balsa wood, up 30% from the previous record in 2015. In the first 11 months of 2020, it exported $784m worth.”  It sure appears the push by eco-warriors and their political followers to reach “net-zero” is “leaving a trail of destruction” and the Indigenous communities on the Amazon basin by clear-cutting those balsa wood trees.

A series of articles about Scotland’s push to create wind power also disclosed how it resulted in clear-cutting 17,283 acres and wiping out 14,000,000 trees to save the planet.  The foregoing claim was also backed up by a citizen inquiry to the Scottish Forestry arm of the Government who provided a partial response which stated “The area of felled trees in hectares, from 2000 (the date when the first scheme was developed, is 6,994 hectares. Based on the average number of trees per hectare, of 2000, this gives an estimated total of 13.9M.” For privacy reasons Scottish Forestry would not disclose the clear-cut trees or acres affected on private property.  An attempt to determine how many IWT (industrial wind turbines) were located in Scotland only seemed available on Wikipedia which said as of June 2020 they were 8,366 MW (megawatts). If the average IWT was 2 MW it suggests a total of 4,183 IWT. In order to secure the bases of those turbines scattered throughout the Scottish countryside those bases would need about 500 tons of concrete to secure each of them. That results in over 2 million tons of cement scattered underground throughout Scotland’s countryside. We should all wonder how that will save the planet from “global warming”?  There has been lots of push-back from Scottish anti-wind groups for years but without much success until very recently when ministers actually refused planning permission for a 39 turbine wind farm in the Highlands’ Monadhliath mountains as it would have a “significant visual impact”.

Perhaps the Scottish politicians were enamored by the fact it was a Scottish engineer, James Blyth who first generated electricity via a wind turbine back in 1887 to power the lights in his cottage but we will probably never know why they bought into the concept?

Conclusion

It seems obvious that not only are wind and solar generation intermittent and unreliable but are also costly and detrimental to forestry and all the nature existing in the forests they decimate.  They have done absolutely nothing to alter the climate under the pretext of saving the planet from climate change.

One should surmise, trees; not solar panels or IWT, are much better at reducing emissions so, STOP the push to replace the world’s forest with those unreliable energy sources!

OCAF is bringing Holger Dalkman from Germany to speak to City of Ottawa Officials and Others

The excitement in Ottawa often keeps locals up at night but we should be pretty sure an upcoming event hosted by OCAF (Ottawa Climate Action Fund) will be nothing like a “truck convoy” with honking horns. Despite it’s more quiet nature it should cause excitement for other reasons! Let’s see why?

OCAF is Hosting an Event

OCAF was founded with $21.7 million of our tax dollars and endorsed by now retired MP, Catherine McKenna and MP Seamus O’Regan at their opening ceremony on May 14, 2021. The ceremony itself was hosted by none other than Diana Fox Carney (wife of Mark Carney), an acclaimed eco-warrior.

Just before OCAF was founded the City of Ottawa’s council (presumably smitten by the ruling Liberal Party) passed a plan (Energy Evolution) to reach “net-zero” emissions by 2050. The plan encompasses erecting 700 industrial wind turbines with a capacity of 3,218 MW and 1,060 MW of rooftop solar. The “plan” appears to have been generated by none other than Pollution Probe rather than the bureaucrats within the municipality.  That in itself seems very strange!

It appears the latest planned event by OCAF is aimed at Ottawa’s transportation and transit sector and they are bringing in a speaker from Germany to deliver the message outlined in the event title which is: Avoid, Shift, Improve: How can international best practices accelerate low-carbon, resilient transportation in Ottawa?

The invited guest speaker is Holger Dalkman whose LinkedIn profile claims he is the “CEO and Founder of Sustain 2030” (an extensive search of “Sustain 2030” on Google turned up nothing) and holds a Masters degree in geography! In searching his name, it appears he has had numerous appearances including with the WEF (World Economic Forum) the UN and many other organizations pushing the “climate-change” agenda. His forte according to his profile is “twenty years of experience working in the field of mobility, cities, sustainability and climate change”. 

It appears his presentation will be related to the transit and transportation system in the City of Ottawa. Perhaps he will recommend banning all trucks unless they are electric powered ones (sans horns).  He may also express delight that OC Transpo is on the path to converting all their buses to battery-powered ones but the foregoing is simply speculation on my part!

If an Ottawa citizen steps back and looks at how well Germany has done with its push to reduce “climate change” and push for “net-zero” emissions they might have second thoughts about Dalkman’s speech and recommendations.

Germany has one of the highest costs of electricity in the world as well as an extremely high cost for home heating.  A March 16, 2022 article stated “A new 5,000 kWh annual supply contract costs an average of 2,098 euros, or 42 cents/kWh, 23% more than in December”. To contrast that with Ontario the average annual household consumption is 9,000 kWh and the average price is about 15 cents/kWh.  It is also worth noting the “42 cents/kWh” is U.S. currency so the Canadian equivalent is about 56 cents/kWh! Germany’s households (half are heated with naturals gas) are also paying dearly for natural gas as it has been affected by the Russia/Ukraine war and are now facing annual heating costs of well over U.S. $4,000/annually.

One should presume many millions of households in Germany are currently experiencing energy poverty*.

The first question asked of Dalkman during the Q. and A. session after his presentation should be; how many of the 41 million German households are currently experiencing “energy poverty” and what has caused it? 

No doubt he will get all choked up as he ponders how to answer that question while continuing to push the “net-zero” target!

*The common denominator for “energy poverty” is 10% or more of household income goes to pay for those two staples of heat and electricity.

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                  

Are More Mask Mandates Coming to Capture CO2

Steven Guilbeault, Canada’s Environment and Climate Change Minister just announced his plan for the new federal carbon offset market and as he stated its focus is: “Climate change is the crisis that will persist,” he said. “That’s why we cannot pause and we must continue to go faster and further.”

From the text in the article, it appears the “crisis” initially will apply to municipalities who will be required to “install new methane capture systems at landfills will be part of the new compliance market.”  That will obviously be a financial burden for the municipalities who will simply raise their municipal taxes to recover the funding required to install those methane capture systems.

Minister Guilbeault went on to say; Over the next year, the government intends to finish the rules to add projects that cut emissions from refrigeration systems, forests and soil management on farms. The rules applied to refrigeration systems, forests and soil management on farms will raise the price of anything requiring refrigeration, logging or crop generation so the objective seems aimed at ensuring the current “inflation” we citizens are experiencing continues!

The one comment in the article that I found very strange was the sentence stating: “The government said it is also now starting to write the rules to add direct air capture technology that pulls carbon dioxide out of the air and traps it underground.” Immediately the Bill Gates plan to fund technology for “sun-dimming” and reflect sunshine out of the earth’s atmospheric came to mind but that plan was blocked for ethical reasons and postponed. 

The other thought was; perhaps Guilbeault was impressed with the ability of the government to make “mask mandates” compulsory during the Covid pandemic? Perhaps he is aware someone has created a mask that could capture the CO2 we expel when breathing”?  After we were “government certified” of having captured a ton of CO2 and buried it in our backyard, we would be given a “carbon offset” and perhaps then be allowed to take a vacation via an aircraft or take that ICE car in our garage out for a spin?

Surely the foregoing isn’t what he has in mind but with this current government we shouldn’t be surprised if that is what he envisages. We should expect it won’t apply to the almost 300 politicians and bureaucrats from Canada that will attend the next COP event or a WEF event in Davros, Switzerland or to our current Prime Minister Justin Trudeau who has flown over 38,000 kilometers around the world since May 1, 2022!

One would hope Guilbeault and many other politicians would spend a little time and watch a recent video posted June 3, 2022 titled “The Carbon Offset Problem” with over 800,000 views so far, to get a sense on the some of the scams taking place related to carbon capture!

Perhaps that is too much to hope for with this current crop of politicians as they are simply some of the scammers!

This happening brought to my attention and it is related:

While You Were Sleeping, Quebec, Michigan and New York Raided Your Piggy Bank

The IESO reports from Midnight to 7 AM on June 7th indicate over those seven hours they sold off Ontario’s surplus generation* to our neighbours in Quebec (7,178 MWh), Michigan (6,849 MWh) and New York (3,114 MWh) for an average price of $1.25/MWh generating a pitiful $21,426  for those 17,141 MWh.  Ontario’s electricity demand during the bulk of those hours was in the 12,000 MW range which it frequently experiences during nights in the Spring and Fall months.  

As the foregoing suggests we didn’t need any other power beyond what nuclear and hydro can easily provide yet those wind turbine contracts give them “first-to-the-grid” rights and even pay them for curtailed power!

As it turned out, a large part of the 17,141 MWh sold off during those seven hours to our three neighbours were related to how those IWT (industrial wind turbines) were operating! IESO had forecast IWT would generate 13,481 MWh during those hours but they only accepted 8,068 MWh and curtailed 5,413 MWh.

The above exercise meant just the IWT cost was $1,738,740 and coupled with the cost for the other exported generation (9,073 MWh) at an average cost of $116/MWh (the latter includes about $30/MWh paid by Ontario taxpayers) brings the total cost to $2,791,200 or about fifty-three cents for each of the 5.3 million Ontario households.

While 53 cents per household is only 7.6 cents per hour; if it happened for the 8760 annual hours per year it would amount to over $600.00 per Ontario household and be a major hit to the 50% of families who are only $200.00 away from being able to pay their bills!

The time has come for the re-elected Ford led Government to do something about this mess and stop the continued bleeding of our after-tax dollars for this fictional “non-emitting” generation harming those 5.3 million Ontario households.

*Low demand coupled with nightly IWT generation drives down the market price referenced as the HOEP (hourly Ontario energy price) forcing ratepayers to pay for the difference between the contracted price and the market price.

Why does Michigan’s planned treatment of Ontario fail to recognize our generosity?

I was contacted by Chris Cooke of Huron Web Publication of Sarnia, Ontario as a follow-up to my recent article in the Financial Post. Chris asked if I would provide them with a follow-up article for their monthly business magazine “First Monday”, a free publication for Sarnia Lampton County residents.  He asked for more specifics in the article on how it would affect local businesses. The FP article was about efforts by Michigan Governor, Gretchen Whitmer’s push to shut down the Line 5 Pipeline which supplies many Sarnia businesses including three refineries. I agreed and the article now appears in the web version of the June edition of “First Monday”.

Find the article starting on page 34.

Link to online Magazine:  http://firstmonday.ca/firstmonday.html