gas plants – Parker Gallant Energy Perspectives

Marc Patrone Show on Sauga 960 AM on August 3, 2022

Marc had me on his show today and my chat with him was preceded by his conversation with Jocelyn Bamford the Chair and founder of the CCMBC (Coaliation of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada. You can listed to her discussion with Marc starting at 48:00 of the podcast followed by yours truly at 1:04:12 and ending at 1:18:24.

Jocelyn covered lots of subjects related to what the Trudeau led government is doing that is negatively affecting the economy and businesses in Canada and my chat with Marc was related to renewable energy here in Ontario and how it has badly affected the EU and in particularly Germany and the UK. Naturally we also talked about industrial wind turbines and EV (electric vehicles) reflecting on a couple of my recent articles.

You can listed to both Jocelyn’s and my chat here at the times noted above:

Podcasts

Wow, a Municipal Mayor has Determined Natural Gas is a Necessity

Back on November 23, 2020 the City of Windsor at their video Council Meeting passed: “Motion 7.1.6 Request that Council pass a resolution calling for the Province of Ontario to move toward phasing out gas-fired power plants”. The motion came about as the result of a plea by Jack Gibbons of the OCAA (Ontario Clean Air Alliance). The motion called to “phase-out all gas-fired electricity generation by 2030 to help Ontario and the City of Windsor meet their climate targets.” As a result, they became one of the 33 municipalities the OCAA had conned into their way of thinking and endorsed the“gas power phaseout”!

Now fast forward to March 23, 2022 and a gathering of municipal, provincial and federal politicians was held but it was not to discuss the gas power phaseout!

The politicians along with representation from LG Electronics North America and Stellantis were at an event to announce a CAD$5 billion joint venture (NextStar) EV battery manufacturing plant. The Windsor Star on June 2, 2022 posted an article describing the joint venture and also stated: “The federal and provincial governments have also committed to investing hundreds of millions in the project while the City of Windsor will assemble the approximately 220 acres of land necessary for the plant and some additional servicing of the site.”* The article went on to note: “The plant will be capable of producing 45 gigawatt hours of electricity and will employ 2,500 people” but doesn’t elaborate how it will produce those 45-gigawatt hours.

As a follow up to the announcement a contact informed me that Enbridge Gas had made a submission to the OEB (Ontario Energy Board) requesting approval to construct two pipelines to supply natural gas and on page 49 of the 604 page submission is a letter dated March 31, 2022 from the Mayor of the City of Windsor, Drew Dilkens, endorsing the $200 million cost of the pipelines to supply NextStar which presumably will allow the new battery plant to “produce those 45 gigawatt hours”.

Now, as Alanis Morissette might say; “Isn’t it Ironic”!

Looking further at the submissions to the OEB one notes a submission by Elson Advocacy on behalf of ED (Environmental Defence) requesting they be allowed as an intervenor in respect to the Enbridge Gas application. While ED are an eco-warrior group who frequently act as intervenors in respect to applications before the OEB involving fossil fuel applications this one has a twist! The letter asks that the OEB also deliver electronic copies of “the pre-filed materials and all other documents in the proceeding be delivered to the following consultant” who is none other than Jack Gibbons of the OCAA!

No doubt Gibbons will shed a tear or two over the turnabout of the City of Windsor who may have suddenly realized without natural gas the city would lose jobs and the benefits of the tax dollars they will receive from NextStar and their employees as well the hundreds of millions from federal and provincial taxpayers helping to create those jobs.

Perhaps the other 32 municipalities who have endorsed the “gas power phaseout” will also come to their senses and the OCAA and Gibbons can rest in peace knowing they haven’t destroyed the livelihood of millions of Canadian workers as they have been trying to do as a (prepare to laugh) charity!

*The amounts committed by the Federal and Provincial governments have not been released.

Wind Energy once again displays its spasmodic and undependable nature

Another couple of warm (not hot) summer days here in Ontario on July 16^th and 17^th and guess what? If you guessed those IWT (industrial wind turbines) were basically unreliable and failed to deliver what the eco-warriors believe in, you were absolutely right!

July 16^th

Those IWT on July 16^th at Ontario’s peak demand of Hour 17 (hour ending at 5 PM), generated 158 MW or 0.8% of the peak demand of 19,999 MW. That 158 MW represented 3% of their capacity at that hour but much earlier in the day they reached their high for the day at 3 AM when they generated 444 MW or 9% of their capacity. At 9 AM however when demand is increasing, they once again hit their low point generating only 44 MW or 0.9% of their capacity. In total those IWT generated 4,906 MW over the full 24 hours and that represented only about 4.2% of their capacity.

Fortunately for all of us Ontario’s natural gas plants were available to ramp up at 9 AM and generated 1,309 MW and at the Hour 17 peak for the day generated 4,483 MW.

July 17^th

On July 17^th the IWT were generating 531 MW at the Ontario peak demand hour which was once again Hour 17 and was 2.6% of the peak which reached 19,925 MW. Those IWT peak for the day, was Hour 21 at 635 MW or 12.9% of their capacity. Earlier in the day at Hour 9 they generated 118 MW or 2.4% of their capacity

Once again, those natural gas plants came to the rescue generating 4,427 MW at the peak hour, and 1,563 MW at Hour 9 when those IWT were almost absent and because demand was still high at Hour 21 those gas plants generated 4,081 MW.

The Irony:

While the gas plants were demonstrating their necessity it is ironic as IESO is contemplating adding additional reliable supply via the addition of a 600-megawatt hydrogen-ready power plant project in Sarnia, Jack Gibbons of the OCAA (Ontario Clean Air Alliance) is pushing to stop it! “The new plant would be designed to run on either 100 per cent natural gas or a blend of up to 65 per cent hydrogen and natural gas, according to a document the company submitted to the federal agency.” The article in the Sarnia Observer went on to quote Gibbons: “Building a new gas-fired power plant would be moving Ontario in absolutely the wrong direction”. The OCAA’s list of supporters includes none other than George Smitherman, former Minister of Energy under the McGuinty led government and who enacted the GEA (Green Energy Act). Another supporter is Peter Tabuns, Ontario’s NDP energy critic. It seems obvious the same individuals who caused Ontario’s electricity prices to spike by well over 100% in the past decade don’t recognize the importance of a reliable and competitively priced electricity supply.

Conclusion

All Ontario residents and businesses should be thankful our natural gas plants are at the ready to ensure we don’t suffer rolling blackouts similar to what is happening in Europe and in US states such as California and Texas who have embraced wind and solar in order to save the planet from the fictitious predictions of the eco-warriors!

Eco-Warriors Bubble Up Again

The Narwhal is pushing pumped storage on behalf of Northland Power and dear old Jack Gibbons of the OCAA (Ontario Clean Air Alliance) is excited. They are also excited about battery storage.

Big pit energy: an old mine could bring renewables and new life to an eastern Ontario town

I took a run at the Northland plans back on November 18, 2013 and didn’t like what it was suggesting at that time. I wouldn’t think things have changed much except for the increasing capital costs which suggest it would be even worse now than it looked like almost nine years ago.

https://ep.probeinternational.org/2013/11/18/parker-gallant-pumped-storage-equals-pumped-energy-prices-2/

June 4th; Just Another day of Generosity by Ontario ratepayers and taxpayers

Well, once again, Ontario’s electricity generators were producing power we didn’t need. Nevertheless, the ratepayers and taxpayers of Ontario were obliged to give it away to our neighbours in Michigan, Quebec and New York. This is a regular occurrence during the Spring and Fall seasons as demand is generally at the lowest levels for us but the GEA (Green Energy Act) imposed by the Liberal government during the McGuinty/Wynne years declared wind and solar generation were the future so they gave them contracts with very high rates and “first-to-the-grid” rights!

Ontarians have been paying the price for over a decade and despite the fact Liberals were found guilty of their stupidity on the electricity file and booted out of power, the current and recently reelected Ford led Conservative Party has done nothing to change things over their prior four years of power!

So, Saturday the fourth of June was simply another example of how the mess continues!

Peak demand in Ontario occurred during the 18^th hour and peaked at 14,437 MW. Nuclear and hydro alone at that hour generated 14,631 MWh so wind and solar were not needed but those damn contracts stand in the way. At that hour wind was operating at 16.9% of their capacity and they could have peaked at 45% of their capacity at 1 AM but IESO (Independent Electricity System Operator) had them curtail 1,200 MW.

IESO were busy selling off our surplus power throughout the day to our neighbours and did so with slightly over 24,000 MWh to Michigan, 22,300 MWh to Quebec and about 12,000 MWh to NY! That power was sold at the astronomical (sarcasm intended) average HOEP (hourly Ontario energy price) of $6.34/MWh.

What the preceding tells us is we are giving Michigan and New York, clean green power to help then keep energy costs low and reduce their emissions. Quebec benefits by not using their hydro generation which they have presold to US States like NY under lucrative contracts. No benefit for Ontario’s ratepayers or taxpayers as the following outlines!

If we simply assume the approximately 58,000 MWh, we exported earned us only $368,000 (58,000 MWh X $6.34/MWh), we should consider what it cost us!

The mix of electricity sold presumably included wind generation (26,000 MWh including curtailed), solar, hydro, nuclear and perhaps even a little natural gas. The minimum cost was approximately $116/MWh based on the GA (Global Adjustment) estimate by Scott Luft and the 2^nd estimate by IESO for May and includes the $30/MWh taxpayer subsidy. Using the $116/MWh the cost of those exports becomes $6,728,000 and including the 4,900 MWh of curtailed wind total costs rise to over $7.3 million. So, for what cost Ontario ratepayers/taxpayers $7.3 million we received less than $400K.

What the foregoing points out to the politicians in charge is that there is something inherently stupid with the way our electricity system is managed. We changed the political parties once because of the electricity file but the Ford government simply shifted a large part of the costs to the taxpayers so it was hidden from sight.

Perhaps the next election will be focused on the provincial debt and include the costs the Ford led government hid inside our Provincial debt.

If they actually do something to sort out the mess created by the Liberals it could reduce the provincial deficits by $6.9 billion as reported by the FAO of Ontario assuming they can keep electricity costs flat, perhaps by taxing the intermittent and unreliability of that expensive and harmful wind generation.

Only time will tell!

Bruce Power took their Four “A” Units offline and no one Noticed

The OCAA (Ontario Clear Air Alliance) has been pushing the closure of Ontario’s nuclear plants for years in addition to their more recent effort to gain municipal support for the closure of our gas plants. They continually suggest the closure of both will not cause problems as we will get all the power those units now produce from Quebec’s excess hydro which is an outright lie. Quebec is a winter peaking province and pushes their residential and businesses to conserve power during that season. No doubt the OCAA will renew the claim with Bruce taking all four of their “A Units (3,144 MW capacity) offline as part of the requirement to do its Vacuum Building Outage. That will allow OCAA to suggest they weren’t missed!

The VBO is a regulation as noted in the Bruce press release: “All four operating units must be shut down once every 12 years to allow for inspections and maintenance to the vacuum building.” The units will come back on line before “summer peaking season” to ensure Ontario has the electricity supply needed.

What is interesting about the units being taken offline is to look at Hour 18 (hour ending at 6 PM) on May 12^th! That time reflects the “peak demand” hour for the day with it reaching 17,179 MW for a five-minute segment. At that hour nuclear generated 6,758 MW, hydro 6,176 MW and natural gas plants 3,666 MW. From the three renewables IESO report; solar contributed 97 MW, biomass 50 MW and those IWT (industrial wind turbines) 866 MW so collectively they provided 5.9% of peak hour needs.

Now try to imagine the blackouts we would experience without nuclear and gas or what Quebec might have provided to replace the 57% of generation those two sources did!

As a matter of interest, the IESO “Intertie report” disclosed Ontario even exported 1,408 MW to Michigan and imported 500 MW from New York. Quebec supplied 115 MW (less than solar and biomass combined at that hour)! Those imports and exports traded at an average rate of $81.06/MWh which is much closer to their actual cost than when the wind is blowing hard during low demand hours and days driving down the HOEP (hourly Ontario energy price)!

So, Mr. Gibbons, Chair of the OCAA, the “cheap and abundant” hydro you told us Quebec would supply if we shut down our nuclear and gas generation never appeared at Hour 18 so what makes you believe we would be able to do without Ontario’s nuclear and gas generation? You seem intent at wanting to cause widespread blackouts throughout Ontario!

The time has arrived for the OCAA and its supporters to back off from their spurious claims!

THE PROPOSED CLEAN ELECTRICITY STANDARD

Comments by the Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada

April 15, 2022

by Robert Lyman and Parker Gallant

On March 8, 2022, the government of Canada published a document entitled, “A Clean Electricity Standard in Support of a net zero electricity sector”. The stated purpose of this document was “to send a clear signal that the Government of Canada intends to move forward with regulations to achieve a net-zero electricity system by 2035; to outline considerations related to this objective; and to solicit comments from Canadians regarding the scope and design of the CES”.

The Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada (hereafter referred to as “the Coalition”) is a not-for-profit association that represents small- and medium-sized manufacturers and other businesses in Canada. The goal of the Coalition is to advance policies that promote economic growth and retain good jobs in Canada.

General Comments

Much of the current public discussion concerning future energy transitions is based on speculation about the timing, cost, and pace of commercialisation of new technologies. It would seem more prudent to base one’s judgments on what has actually happened in past energy transitions rather than try and predict the future.

The period from scientific discovery to widespread commercialisation of technologies has been much longer than is currently estimated by advocates of rapid decarbonisation. None of the steps in the innovation pathway – research, discovery, testing, demonstration, initial market development or widespread commercialisation – operates according to a fixed or predictable schedule.

Professor Vaclav Smil of the University of Manitoba, perhaps the world’s foremost expert on energy transitions, has argued that past transitions have been slow, painstaking and hard to predict. Existing technologies, both for generation and consumption of electricity, have a lot of inertia. Smil observes that the changes in technology and infrastructure required to decarbonise the world in a few decades as a ‘grand delusion’.

The proposed CES seems premised on the view that, in the face of high market costs and barriers, governments can force the pace of change and retain the support of the electorate in doing so. Outside of the centrally planned economies, however, no government has attempted to prescribe the timelines for commercialisation of new technologies or the dates by which a large share of society’s needs must be met by a new technology. ‘Picking winners’ may be an increasingly popular aspect of national industrial policy (despite its history of failures), but a prudent government should be hesitant about committing billions of taxpayers’ dollars to technologies that are not ready and cannot compete without permanent subsidies.

Those who pursue the net zero goal will be confronted with the reality that hydrocarbons are nature’s most efficient embodiment of primary energy. The combination of high energy density, abundance, stability, safety, portability, safe storage and affordability is unmatched by any other source of energy. Governments cannot wish those advantages away.

The electricity sector offers good examples of the immense barriers to net zero. Just meeting the additional generation requirements needed to power proposed conversion to electric vehicles would require a major expansion in the electricity generation capacity across Canada, sometimes estimated as the addition of 10,000 megawatts of capacity from today’s levels. The provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan and Alberta still have coal fired capacity collectively totalling over 9,000 MW which will also require replacement, adding considerable additional costs.

The two largest power projects being built in Canada today, Site C in British Columbia and Muskrat Falls in Labrador, have a combined design capacity of 1,944 megawatts. To meet just the additional EV-related power demand, at least eight more projects of the same size would have to be built. It generally takes at least 15 to 20 years to bring such a project to production in Canada. There are none even being contemplated at this time.

Central to the vision on which the proposed CEP is based is the thesis that in future Canada must rely primarily on wind and solar power generation for incremental supply, notwithstanding that these sources are intermittent and frequently unreliable.

The Issue of Costs

The discussion paper presents the transformation of Canada’s electrical energy system from one which is predominately reliant on low- or zero-carbon dioxide emissions to one that has virtually no carbon dioxide emissions as though it can be accomplished at low cost. Indeed, considerations of cost seem barely to enter into the presentation of facts, which is a highly unrealistic approach.

Canadians’ experience with efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from electricity systems in Ontario and Alberta have already revealed the significant economy-damaging costs of seeking to increase reliance on wind, solar and biomass energy. In Ontario, electricity rates for consumers doubled over the past decade and, according to the Ontario Auditor General, the cost of the move to increased wind and solar energy will be $90 billion over the life of the existing contracts.

Those who have studied the experience of other countries that have sought to increase reliance on renewable energy sources for electricity generation have found consistent patterns. These efforts bring about large increases in the actual prices that must be paid for electricity by consumers and businesses. Further, the price increases grow and accelerate as the percentage of electricity generated from intermittent renewables increases. This is due to the need for large and increasing amounts of costly backup and storage – things that are not needed at all in conventional hydrocarbons-based systems. Jurisdictions that increased generation from renewables up to as high as 30 per cent to total electricity supply have seen an approximate tripling in the price of electricity to ratepayers, except where a large portion of the increased costs is off-loaded to taxpayers.

In the remainder of these comments, the Coalition will address four specific aspects of the proposed CES:

The paper’s treatment of energy technology pathways
The paper’s proposal to minimize use of natural gas-fired generation
The cost of bulk electricity storage
Issues related to transmission

Technology Generation Pathways

The concept of technology is touted in the discussion paper as a way to achieve “net-zero” electricity for which wind turbines (onshore and offshore), solar (photovoltaic and concentrated), hydro and nuclear are considered to be zero emissions! It goes on to claim: “low and non-emitting generation technologies are becoming more cost-competitive, the pace of low-carbon electricity deployment must accelerate for Canada to reach NZ2035”.

The paper also opines favourably on possible energy sources under development such as SMR (small modular reactors), hydrogen fuel cells and carbon capture as zero emission. It also favours biomass (cogeneration and simple cycle) ahead of any form of natural gas generation.

Biomass: The treatment of biomass as low emissions flies in the face of reports from the UK where one of the world’s largest biomass power plants (DRAX)1. ranks third in the EU for emissions (if they were counted) and also received more than £800m in subsidies.

Solar photovoltaic is also a questionable source of energy in Canada (weak winter solar) and where it has been developed has cost more than estimated and produced considerably less power than forecast. The larger projects started on the Nevada deserts have had many problems and the State 2. is dependent for over 60% of its electricity needs on natural gas plants. It would also need storage which would add considerably to its costs.

SMR technology is in process in many locations around the world but to date only a small number are operating, with Russia’s Akademik Lomonosov,3. the world’s first floating nuclear power plant which began operation in May 2020 producing energy from two 35 MW SMRs. China’s Huaneng Group Co.’s 200-megawatt unit 1 reactor at Shidao Bay is now feeding power to the grid in Shandong province, the China Nuclear Energy Association 4. said in a December 2021 article. Other SMRs are under construction or in the licensing stage in Argentina, Canada, China, Russia, South Korea and the United States of America. SMR, dependent on costs, appears to be a possible “net-zero” energy source before several others but is unlikely to meet the targets committed to by the Canadian Federal Government at COP26.

Wind and solar are touted as playing a “key role”in reducing the electricity sector’s emissions but it will be very costly as demonstrated in Ontario5. where prices more than doubled in less than 10 years as they rose to represent over 15 per cent of capacity but generated only 9 per cent of demand, often when not needed. It must be recognized they receive “first-to-the-grid” rights meaning clean hydro is spilled and clean nuclear is steamed off to maintain grid stability and ratepayers are saddled with those costs in addition to what is paid to wind and solar developers. Due to their unreliable and intermittent nature they require backup from natural gas generation and ratepayers are saddled with that cost too.

Carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS) is a major part of the discussion paper. Based on the following excerpt however it seems to be viewed as temporary: “Over time, however, natural gas coupled with CCUS will increasingly be in competition with other emerging options that are both non-emitting and flexible in the roles they can play in electricity systems.” The issue of CCUS has gained interest from the Government of Alberta 6. and six major oil patch participants who are seeking “carbon capture credits” to assist in recovering some of the costs. While Canada is a leader in the development of CCUS the costs involved will be billions of dollars. Those costs will add considerably to electricity generation costs from flexible fossil fuels required to back up intermittent and unreliable wind and solar generation. A report from June 2020 from Rutgers University 7. stated: “The analysis suggests coal-sourced CO2 emissions can be stored in this region at a cost of $52–$60 ton−1 , whereas the cost to store emissions from natural-gas-fired plants ranges from approximately $80 to $90.” Note the foregoing are US dollars and those costs will be added to each kWh delivered. Transferring part of these costs from emitters to taxpayers through the use of investment tax credits for CCUS will not reduce the cost to society.

Hydrogen blending with natural gas will raise consumer costs and risk public health while barely reducing emissions, a US think-tank 9. reported in a March 30, 2022 article. It goes on to state “A blend of 20% green hydrogen in natural gas would raise fuel costs for heating and cooking by a factor of two to four, as renewable H₂ is currently six to 14 times more expensive than fossil gas, the study explains. Green hydrogen prices would have to fall by roughly an order of magnitude to achieve parity with the price of natural gas for use in buildings.” The “Discussion Paper” suggests “releasing the Hydrogen Strategy for Canada to position Canada as a world-leading producer, user and exporter of clean hydrogen, and associated technologies”. It appears once again the blending of hydrogen and natural gas would further drive up the cost of electricity should this be cast as another regulation.

Natural Gas

Natural gas has long been favoured as a clean, efficient, plentiful and affordable source of energy supply for multiple uses. In absolute terms, natural gas is the fastest growing source of supply for energy consumers, and through the use of liquification one of the fastest growing sources of international energy trade. In the United States, the increasing domestic supply of natural gas and its affordability have allowed the US to convert a large amount of previously coal-fired electricity generation to the lower cost and cleaner fuel.

In Canada, natural gas is used both for reliable base-load power generation and a back-up source to help cope with the serious problems of intermittency that plague wind and solar generation sources that have been used for political reasons. According to Canada’s Emissions Inventory, published by Environment and Climate Change Canada, in 2019 natural gas fired generating plants produced 46,100 GWh of electricity, 8 per cent of Canada’s total, and emitted 22 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, 32 per cent of the emissions from power generation. This, however, is only illustrative of how extremely low greenhouse gas emissions already are from electricity generation in Canada. Emissions from natural-gas generated power are only 3 per cent of Canada’s total emissions.

Increasingly, natural gas electricity generation in most provinces will come to represent a backup source produced from plants constructed a decade or more ago. The Independent Electricity Systems Operator of Ontario (IESO) recently completed a study to determine the feasibility and cost of phasing out natural gas generation by 2030. The findings of that study are very relevant to the federal government’s consideration of the Proposed Clean Electricity Standard. These included the following:

Gas generation offers a set of services, including quick response time and assured availability, that keep the grid reliable and help balance the variability of wind and solar.
Completely phasing out gas generation by 2030 would lead to blackouts.
Replacing gas generation in Ontario by 2030 would require more than $27 billion to install new sources of supply and upgrade transmission infrastructure. This translates into a 60 per cent, or $100 per month, increase in the average monthly residential bill.
There are many other practical considerations that make a 2030 phase-out impossible, including the time that it takes to plan, get regulatory approvals for, and build new infrastructure and non-availability of storage as an alternative. Those impediments are likely to last well beyond 2030.

The IESO report did not address the fact that many natural gas generation facilities, including those operated by private firms (i.e. the so-called non-utility generators, or NUGs), while often signed to 20-year contracts, generally operate for much longer than that. In fact, it is not surprising to see them operating under 40-year contracts. The premature cancellation of these contracts could cost well over $600 million, which would also be added to consumers’ bills.

Anyone considering the termination of existing contracts across Canada and the construction of new generation, transmission and storage facilities to replace the services now provided by natural gas-fired generators would have to take these factors into account.

Storage

Battery Storage is only cited once in the Discussion Paper in the following context: “leveraging Canada’s competitive advantage in mining to build the Canadian battery and critical mineral supply chains”. The foregoing suggests the author(s) do not regard it as a means to significantly support the electricity sector, perhaps due to its high costs. A report from June 2021 by the US NREL 8. (National Renewable Energy Laboratory) estimated the cost as; “(e.g., a $300/kWh, 4-hour battery would have a power capacity cost of $1200/kW).” That translates to a cost of U.S.$1.2 million for just 1 MW (megawatt) of storage for 4 hours and if done to any scale would drive up electricity prices.

No jurisdiction has yet succeeded in getting the percentage of its electricity generated from intermittent renewables past 50 per cent on an annualized basis. As the reliance on renewables increases, the grid operator must rely more on coal or natural gas-fueled backup power, and where these are prohibited, on some form of storage, most likely from large batteries. The cost of batteries is high and increases with the period of time for which storage is required, and whether the storage is needed only to balance daily or seasonal variations in demand

The cost of batteries sufficient to power a jurisdiction of millions of people would be enormous. In jurisdictions where a calculation has been made, the costs of the batteries exceeds the full annual GDP of the jurisdiction, and implies an increase in the price of electricity by a factor of 15 or more. For example, according to a study by Roger Andrews[1], the total amount of storage needed to provide secure supply in California amounts to about 25,000 GWh per year, more than a full month’s current rate of usage. Even assuming a substantial reduction in current battery prices, the cost of that would be in the range of US $5 trillion. And these batteries would need to be replaced regularly. Ken Gregory[2], a Canadian engineer, has assessed the cost of electrifying the United States economy without hydrocarbon-based generation, including the cost of battery backup. Simply to meet 2020 demand for 31 days would require storage that would cost $77.4 trillion, almost four times current US annual GDP.

Bulk electricity battery storage is hopelessly insufficient, no matter the cost. David Wojick, a Virginia-based Ph.D. in the logic and philosophy of science, explains this well in his article “California secretly struggles with renewables” (January 19, 2021).

Here is an excerpt:

“California has hooked up a grid battery system that is almost ten times bigger than the previous world record holder, but when it comes to making renewables reliable it is so small it might as well not exist. The new battery array is rated at a storage capacity of 1,200 megawatt hours (MWh); easily eclipsing the record holding 129 MWh Australian system built by Tesla a few years ago. However, California peaks at a whopping 42,000 MW. If that happened on a hot, low wind night this supposedly big battery would keep the lights on for just 1.7 minutes (that’s 103 seconds). This is truly a trivial amount of storage…Barely time to find the flashlight, right? “This one reportedly utilizes more than 4,500 stacked battery racks, each of which contains 22 individual battery modules. That is 99,000 separate modules that have to be made to work well together. Imagine hooking up 99,000 electric cars and you begin to get the picture.”

Large-scale battery storage of electricity is still an infant industry, with enormous costs and technological risks, It is foolish in the extreme for Canada to commit to a pattern of electricity generation dependent on large-scale batteries for security of supply.

[1] Roger Andrews, The cost of wind and solar power: batteries included. Energy Matters, November 22, 2018

[2] Ken Gregory. The Cost of Net-Zero-Electrification of the USA. Friends of Science. December 20, 2021

Transmission Costs

The Discussion Paper notes; “Achieving net-zero electricity will require coordinated efforts. Provinces and territories hold jurisdiction over electricity planning and operation, while the federal government holds jurisdiction over emissions reduction regulations, interprovincial transmission projects, and international commitments, among others.”

What the foregoing infers is either conflict or agreement will occur between the two parties as to how to achieve “net-zero electricity” which will obviously depend on projected outcomes and the current generation sources in each province/territory.

One example is referenced as the “Atlantic Loop” project which aims to transmit hydro power from Muskrat and Churchill Falls (both located in Labrador) to other Atlantic regions, principally Nova Scotia which has 8 coal fired plants that federal regulations says they must close by 2030. No doubt Nova Scotia would be happy to replace those coal plants with hydro power but what cost would Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador charge for that power? The other consideration is that Quebec is a winter peaking province so has little surplus energy available during that period meaning little or no generation from Churchill Falls.

To top things off, Muskrat Falls is way over budget, having ballooned from an estimated $7.2 billion to $13.1 billion. The Federal 10. government stepped in to provide up to $5.2 billion with $1 billion of that as a loan guarantee and another $1 billion for transmission costs. The latter $1 billion is 20 per cent of the estimated cost of the Atlantic Loop which in late January 2022 Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Dominic LeBlanc said his Ministry required more information before they could “justify a federal investment”.

Based on the comments in the Discussion Paper it appears the government is prepared now to “justify” that investment as it states: “The ‘Atlantic Loop’ project is an example of collaboration to bring clean power to where it’s needed in Eastern Canada. The Government of Canada and the Canada Infrastructure Bank are currently collaborating with provinces and regional partners to advance this intertie project, which could greatly reduce emissions and maintain electricity affordability in the Atlantic region.” So, Nova Scotians should now wonder what will the cost be for the power combined with the costs of the transmission. Will the cost of electricity be truly affordable? To top things off, GE 11. (who supplied the turbines) has been having problems with the software for the LIL (Labrador Island-link) slated to bring power to the Northeast Avalon.

High voltage transmission projects vary in terms of costs per kilometer. As one example the 301-kilometer Eastern Alberta Transmission Line 12. completed several years ago cost $1.8 billion or about $6 million per kilometer. Two major power lines under construction in northwestern Ontario are estimated to cost much less! Those are the East-West Tie Line, 13. a 450-kilometre line stretching from Wawa to Thunder Bay, at a cost of $777 million makes its projected cost per kilometer $1.7 million. The other project is the 1,800 kilometer Wataynikaneyap Power 14. line serving many small indigenous communities on its route. In total it will serve 15,000 people for a total cost of $1.9 billion or just over $1 million per kilometer and $126.6K per person and over $500K for a family of four.

An article in the Financial Post on March 31, 2022 penned by Francis Bradley, CEO of Electricity Canada titled “The clock is ticking on Canada’s electricity grid” 15. stated “Under net-zero, Canada will stop its reliance on fossil fuels by mid-century. However, by the government’s own estimation, to do so Canada will need two to three times the amount of electricity it produces now in order to decarbonize other sectors of the economy.” The article went on to note: “Transmission lines — the big power lines that move electricity long distances — are hugely complicated to survey and then build. Even making sure the electricity infrastructure on your street is ready for the increased load will take years of investment.” Mr. Bradley went on to say; “Decarbonizing Canada’s economy by 2050 will be a herculean task. Decarbonizing the electricity system in less than half that time will be doubly so. If either is to have any chance of succeeding, the electricity industry will need to do more, faster, as Prime Minister Trudeau has said. But that also works the other way. The countdown clock is ticking. And we’re still waiting for vital leadership.”

What the above illustrates is that just the costs associated with ensuring the transmission lines delivering the “clean green” renewable energy will require significant upgrades costing billions of dollars. Those costs coupled with those associated with the desire to eliminate fossil fuel generation will drive up power costs for families and businesses. It will affect the provinces of Nova Scotia, Alberta and Saskatchewan to a much greater degree due to their current use of fossil fuels in the generation of their electricity needs.

The foregoing suggests costs in the tens of billions of dollars which in turn will damage Canada’s ability to attract new business, it’s related capital and will decimate the economy and drive-up unemployment levels.

Conclusion

This analysis outlines the impossibilities of achieving the goals set by the Government of Canada within the proposed time frame. Any push towards the unrealistic outcomes included in the planned government policies will badly damage the Canadian economy. As well, they will lead to millions of Canadian households living in energy poverty, spending well over 10 per cent of disposable income on trying to stay warm in winter and cool in summer. It is no accident that Canadian government climate plans never include reputable, independent cost/benefit analyses, as to do so would reveal to Canadians just how unachievable and punitively costly the stated goals are.

It is important to recognize Canada’s total emissions in 2019 (last reported year) were 20 Mt lower than China’s emissions increased in the two years between 2019 and 2021 during the pandemic. China’s emissions reported by the IEA (International Energy Agency) rose to over 11.9 billion tonnes which represents 33 per cent of total global emissions. China was also the only major economy to experience economic growth in both 2020 and 2021, questioning the often-cited claim that “the environment and the economy go hand in hand”.

Sensible, measurable policies to achieve tangible benefits to the environment are welcomed by the Coalition. Unfortunately, the approach in the Clean Electricity Standard document does not qualify as either measurable or achievable.

Other related observations

Peak emissions occurred in 2007 at 752 megatons and our population was 32.89 million so per capita emissions were 22.86 tons per person.

Emissions in 2019 (latest from Government of Canada) were 730 megatonnes and our population was 38.19 million so our per capita emissions were 19.11 tons per person a drop of 16.4%.

https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental-indicators/greenhouse-gas-emissions.html

Canada had wind capacity at the end of 2021 of 14,304 MW and 2,399 MW of solar which reputedly generated slightly less than 6% of total electricity of 647.7 TWh! https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/canada-energy-future/2020/results/index.html From this “variable renewable energy (VRE) sources such as wind and solar. Figure R.21 shows that by 2050, total non-hydro renewable capacity in the Evolving Scenario is over triple 2018 levels. Total wind capacity rises to 40 GW and total solar capacity rises to 20 GW.” It also has a key uncertainty “Export market developments: Climate policies, fuel prices, electrification and power sector decarbonization in export markets could impact future projects and transmission intertie developments.”

Wind Generation is Up and Down like the Proverbial Toilet Seat and China’s Emissions in Two Years Increased by More than Canada’s Total Emissions

As noted in an article from a couple of days ago the wind on March 31^st was blowing like crazy but two days later it had wimped out.

On March 31^st IWT (industrial wind turbines) generated about 88,000 MWh and curtailed another 3,100 MW. Generated and curtailed IWT combined; is about what 3 million average Ontario households would consume in one day. Fast forward two days later to April 2^nd and those IWT generated only 7,000 MWh or about what 230,000 households would consume.

Quite the difference and clearly displays the “intermittent” and “unreliability” of IWT to be counted on to even keep the lights on in most households! Thankfully Ontario’s hydro and natural gas generation were available to fill the gap during wind’s absence.

The other positive effect of those IWT failures was Ontario’s HOEP (hourly Ontario energy price) averaged above $50/MWh so just shy of what is paid for hydro generation whereas on March 31^st we were basically giving away surplus power to our neighbours who pay the HOEP price which was $16.46/MWh.

Politicians and bureaucrats should invoke warning labels when promoting IWT similar to those found on various products we consume which would read; “WARNING: industrial wind turbines may cause blackouts”!

China’s emissions and their economy grew in both 2020 and 2021

The Manhattan Contrarian today had an article dealing with a report from the IEA (International Energy Agency) which referenced China and carried the following quote: “China’s CO2 emissions increased by 750 Mt over the two-year period between 2019 and 2021. China was the only major economy to experience economic growth in both 2020 and 2021“.

In visiting the IEA website the press release associated with their report went on to state: “The emissions increases in those two years in China more than offset the aggregate decline in the rest of the world over the same period. In 2021, China’s CO2 emissions rose above 11.9 billion tonnes, accounting for 33% of the global total.

To put the foregoing in context to Canada’s emissions; just the increase in China’s emissions in those two years was 20 MT more than Canada’s total emissions in 2019.

The IEA press release went on to say: China’s rise in emissions resulted largely from a sharp increase in electricity demand that leaned heavily on coal power. With rapid GDP growth and additional electrification of energy services, electricity demand in China grew by 10% in 2021, faster than economic growth at 8.4%. This increase in demand of almost 700 TWh was the largest ever experienced in China.“

To put some context on the above another IEA report claims Canada generated 640.8 TWh in 2020 which is less than the 700 TWh China’s demand grew generated mainly from coal!

What the above clearly enunciates is that Canada’s move to net-zero is simply a means of penalizing our economic well being due to the whims of the current Trudeau led government supported by the Singh led NDP!

We should ask. why are those two so intent on harming Canadians by their inane beliefs and push to achieve net-zero emissions using unreliable and intermittent renewables?

Over the Top: The WEF and Canadian Banks, Hydro-Quebec and Canada’s Minister of the Environment

Digital identity is all the rage amongst banks around the world and the WEF (World Economic Forum) is pushing for its adoption having recently released a 46 page report with the concept covering not just financial services but pretty well every interface mankind has. It is alarming to watch Neil Parmenter, President and CEO of the Canadian Bankers Association in a short YouTube video, he appears to have done on behalf of the WEF! In the video he pushes the concept: we should trust our banks to maintain the security of our “digital ID”!

Canada’s banks recently displayed their position by doing absolutely nothing to push-back when the Trudeau led government enacted the Emergencies Act and instructed the banks to freeze any account that had contributed funds to the Truckers Convoy! They did what they were told to the detriment of thousands of Canadians who had simply stood up to protect their basic rights by donating a small portion of their earnings. Now, try to imagine what might happen if we are all impregnated with a “digital ID”?

Shopify, Royal Bank pledge to be some of the first buyers of energy from Warren Buffett’s Alberta wind project

The captioned article appeared in the Financial Post a few days ago and should strike all who read it as a wimpy pledge! The article stated: “Shopify Inc. and Royal Bank of Canada, the country’s largest technology company and lender, respectively, said this week they had signed a “purchase power agreement,” or PPA, that commits them to buying 90,000 KWh of electricity annually from the Rattlesnake Ridge Wind Power Project, which is located southwest of Medicine Hat.” To put the foregoing in perspective the current average price per kilowatt hour (kWh) in Alberta is about 11.3 cents/kWh so this commitment represents a cost of around $10,170 dollars or just over $5K each. Pretty sure multi-billionaire, Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Energy Inc., who are constructing the 130 MW (megawatt) IWT (industrial wind turbine) farm are not as excited about this as the RBC or Shopify. As it turns out the 90,000 should have referenced MWh (megawatt hours) rather than kWh. The 90,000 MWh would represent about 26% of the probable full annual output of the IWT generation from it meaning the three companies (Bullfrog Power was also a signatory to the agreement) would be paying somewhere in the neighbourhood of $3.4 million each.

One should assume when the wind isn’t blowing those three companies will happily accept gas or coal generation to ensure they can keep the lights on. The hypocrisy is mind blowing and presumably is a result of the continued push by the Trudeau government and his Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, Steven Guilbeault who is determined to eliminate the use of fossil fuels completely!

For industrial Promotors, no more all-you-can-eat buffet at Hydro-Quebec

An article published in Le Journal de Montreal in mid-January carried the following (translated): “In a letter obtained by Le Journal , the state company warns one of them that although it still has a “significant volume of electricity”, the reception of an “exceptional quantity of projects” forces her to review her ways of doing things, even to choose the projects she can supply in the future.’’ The article went on to note: “The energy transition, the sudden interest of companies in green energy has caused demand to explode, justifies Maxence Huard-Lefebvre, director of communications for the state-owned company. And today’s projects have nothing to do with those we received before. Their energy needs are quite different. Result: in its “pipeline” for the next few years, Hydro-Quebec would have projects totaling “more than 10,000 MW of power”. However, such power represents neither more nor less than 25% of Hydro-Québec’s total capacity (40,000 MW) in the province. “It’s too much, slice (said?) the spokesperson for Hydro-Quebec. Even if we wanted to, it would be impossible to support all these projects”

What the foregoing suggests is Hydro-Quebec has reached the end of the line for being able to supply “green” emissions free hydro as they have long-term commitments to supply several New England states as well as their own population. To add fuel to the proverbial fire one should note Statistics Canada reported in 2020 Quebec accounted for almost 50% of all EV registrations in Canada, no doubt due to the $8,000 grant they offer coupled with the Feds $5,000 grant. Those EV will require charging particularly during the cold winters (Quebec’s peak demand season) when Ontario is frequently called on to supply power to Quebec.

Ontario’s approach to tackling climate change ‘disappointing’: environment minister

The captioned was the headline in the National Observer’s article on March 16, 2022 and carried the following quote from Minister Guilbeault: “I believe that every level of government in Canada needs to do their fair share when it comes to climate change and the climate crisis, and frankly, when you look at what Ontario’s been doing, it’s been disappointing, and I’m not the only one who’s said that,”. The National Observer is a left-wing anti-fossil fuel periodical that regularly receives government handouts which from what I was able to find has amounted to at least $368,000 according to the Government Grant website.

The remark from Guilbeault is humorous should one first read Lorrie Goldstein’s article in the Toronto Sun on March 16, 2022. It outlines how Ford is sucking up to the Trudeau Liberals by kowtowing to their whims including their reaction to the Trucker’s Convoy and the “Emergencies Act”; mirrored by the Ford government. Ford also praised the Liberals for how they dealt with the pandemic and are jointly aligned on the fight against Michigan’s Governor Witmer in her efforts to shut down Line 5. All those kudos from Ford heaped on the Trudeau minority Liberal Government apparently are not enough based on Guilbeault’s disappointment. Is Guilbeault unaware, Ontario has one of the cleanest electricity grids in the world and how their taxpayers and ratepayers are paying dearly for wind and solar generation? Is he not aware Ontario’s Minister of Energy seems to be pushing for closure of our gas plants, giving EV owners cheap charging rates, etc. etc.? Perhaps he is ticked that over 60% of Ontario households use natural gas as their heating source but that is not something most households can afford to change.

Summary

Hopefully the foregoing demonstrates the mess created by eco-warriors and their infiltration of Federal and Provincial governments to the detriment of Canadian households who must bear the brunt of their push to eliminate fossil fuel use in the crazed objective to reach “net-zero” where we will all be “digitally identified”!

Time to reclaim our independence and reject the WEF’s Great Reset!

Ford Energy Act Revolt (FEAR)

An earlier article reflected on how the Ford led government is kowtowing to the Trudeau led government and FEAR mongering in respect to the “climate change” crusade. It suggested the Minister of Energy, Todd Smith was pushing for more negative action in respect to Ontario’s energy sector via directives to both IESO and the OEB that would serve to punish ratepayers/taxpayers for fossil fuel consumption.

The alarming ones were referenced as Ministerial directives from Minister of Energy, Todd Smith, to IESO with the first related to “Clean Energy Credits” and the second to “Pathways to Decarbonization”. He also has asked the OEB to investigate options for a “New Ultra-Low Overnight Electricity Rate”.

Let’s examine the directives to IESO!

Clean Energy Credit Directive to IESO

Energy Minister Smith’s letter of direction to IESO instructed them “to provide further value for ratepayers by supporting the creation of a voluntary clean energy credit market“. That suggests he is a believer in increasing costs to consumers to eliminate “emissions”! Is he simply following orders from above?

Needless to say, IESO take instructions from the Ministry so they have commenced the process by issuing an “Engagement Plan” meant to respond to the Ministerial directive! The amusing thing about his directive is he says the objective is; “making life more affordable and I believe ratepayers can reap further value from the electricity system that they have built.“ Hard to believe requiring ratepayers to purchase Clean Energy Credits (CEC) will make “life more affordable”. It is somewhat mindboggling to research CEC values as they are all over the map in respect to prices. A somewhat dated article (January 22, 2021) about prices in the New England states show their costs as anywhere from $11.05/MWh to $233.75/MWh depending on the state involved.

Because Ontario’s electricity sector is one of the lowest emitters of CO 2 Minister Smith seems to believe we can, as an example, get an agreement to those using fossil fuels to heat our homes or running a business to purchase CEC! The revenue will then be used to reduce our costs; making “life more affordable”. It sounds too much like the Federally imposed “carbon tax” which does nothing more than increase the number of bureaucrats taxpayer’s support while increasing our cost of living! The “credit offerings” will include: “nuclear, waterpower, wind, solar and bioenergy.“ Smith’s letter doesn’t clarify; if you have solar panels on your roof will you be asked to hand out a CEC or whether you will be paid for doing so? One should suspect the various contracted parties under the FIT (feed in tariff) programs will not willingly pass those CEC’s on unless they are compensated. The other issue is by requiring those who emit CO 2 to purchase CEC means any household using natural gas as a heating source may be required to purchase those CEC. We should note those same households are already paying carbon taxes imposed by the Federal Government along with the Provincial Sales tax. CEC simply look to be a further tax increase!

One would hope the IESO point out the fallacies with the Ministerial directive and stand up for us ratepayer/taxpayers!

Pathways to Decarbonization

On October 7, 2021 IESO released a report titled “Decarbonization And Ontario’s Electricity System” which was a response to thirty (30) municipalities who had pressured the Ministry of Energy to phase out natural gas plants. IESO’s report of 27 pages outlined the cost to do that would hit ratepayers with $27 billion and raise the price of household electricity bills by $1,200 annually; an increase of 60%. Not quite what the McGuinty/Wynne led government put us through but still very significant during this high inflation period.

Despite that rather shocking news Minister Smith on the same date (October 7, 2021) as IESO’s report, issued a directive to them and it stated “I would ask that IESO evaluate a moratorium on the procurement of new natural gas generating stations and develop an achievable pathway to zero emissions in the electricity sector.” One should wonder, did he read the 27 pages of the IESO report or not equate what he was suggesting we do in Ontario with what was happening in Europe? An article just nine days before he issued the directive noted electricity prices climbing to record highs in the UK and EU countries. Renewable energy’s failure in the form of wind and solar’s absence coupled with low water levels were causing electricity prices to climb to record highs at the same time as a price spike in natural gas arrived. Anyone even casually, following the news at that time out of the UK and most other European countries would have discovered how the efforts to reach net-zero were causing both economic pain and energy poverty. Needless to say, things are much worse now and all of North America has been affected by the increase in the market prices of oil, gas and coal.

Despite the foregoing, IESO will follow Minister Smith’s directive and have commenced the “engagement process” to develop their response. One would assume the evaluation will mirror that of their earlier report and likely suggest costs will be even higher.

As the heading on this article implies, we should all be “fearful” of what the Ford government is doing as it seems set to create another sharp rise in the cost of electricity despite the fact Ontario has one of the cleanest non-emitting grids in the world.

Virtue signaling is costly so perhaps the time has come to repulse the “FEAR” and revolt!

PS: More to come.