Offshore Wind from Sable Island can Power the Atlantic Provinces, well Maybe Not

Sable Island horses

Anyone who has spent even a small amount of time simply looking at industrial wind turbines with the purpose of determining their value in replacing power generated by rammable fossil fuels such as natural gas or coal will quickly realize not only is it very old technology, but it is harmful to both birds, bats and humans as well as other animals.

Despite the fact Sir James Blyth first generated electricity from a wind turbine 136 years ago in 1887  eco-warriors keep promoting it as if it was a new discovery. Those eco-warriors believe industrial wind turbines should be used to replace natural gas plants to generate electricity whereas gas plant electricity generation didn’t occur until “1939/1940 at a plant in Neuchà¢tel, Switzerland. The total output of the turbine was 4 megawatts (MW)“ and occurred over a half century after Blyth’s invention.  It seems obvious which invention made the most sense but the zealots out to save the world from global warming seem oblivious to common sense! They keep pushing the BS about the wonders of wind turbines both onshore and offshore!

Todays Wind Turbine Zealots

Needless to say those wind turbine zealots such as the current Board Chair of the CCI (Canadian Climate Institute), Peter Nicholson, where Rick Smith (former CEO of Environmental Defence) sits as President, has just released a report via the PPF (Public Policy Forum).  Based on Nicholson’s LinkedIn profile it sure appears his many jobs over the years have been dependent on our tax dollars. The CCI and the PPF are both “charitable” institutions also dependent on taxpayer largesse as a series of articles on the latter (a reputed “independent non-partisan” organization) disclosed!  

Nicholson’s recent plunge into the bottomless pit of taxpayer money is in his report for PPF titled, “Catching the Wind: How Atlantic Canada Can Become an Energy Superpower”; in which he proposes “that the Sable Island Bank alone could accommodate at least 1,000 offshore turbines, each with 15-megawatt (MW) capacity.“ He goes on suggesting the proposed capacity of 15,000 MW would generate 70,000 GW (gigawatts) annually meaning they would operate at a mind blowing 53.3% of their capacity. He seems to believe for some reason those turbines would far surpass generation experienced by other offshore capacity such as the UK, which overall, averaged only 38% of their rated capacity despite the fact the two largest offshore wind farms in the world (Hornsea 1 and Hornsea 2) are located there.  

For those who are familiar with Sable Island (12 square miles) they would recognize it is famous for it’s feral horses that have survived for over 250 years although according to Parks Canada “nearly a quarter of the herd had succumbed to harsh winter conditions over the past year – a loss more than double the yearly average.“ One should question if the proposed 1,000, 15MW industrial wind turbines along with the “global warming” (sarcasm intended) that produced those harsh winter conditions would further impact the herd? Needless to say Nicholson mentioned the “feral horses” in his report but only as a feature of the island.

Nicholson went on in his report stating “Offshore wind could be for Atlantic Canada what oil was to Texas or hydro power to Quebec. We are talking here not of something incremental, but monumental.“ One should find it odd he would reference “Texas” but says nothing about how the Trudeau led Liberal Government is intent on shutting down the oil and gas sector in Alberta. That statement alone would suggest he is simply a Liberal troll producing a report (term used loosely) for the PPP, that “independent non-partisan” organization!

Nicholson, who is a Member of the Order of Canada and of the Order of Nova Scotia goes on in the report to focus on the seven (7) measures tailor-made to support the vision articulated in his paper. Those seven measures are all related to the Trudeau led Liberal Government allocating funds totalling $93 billion dollars aimed at electrification/decarbonization of the Canadian economy in their recent budget(s). It seems obvious Nicholson believes the bulk of it should be focused on placing those 1,000, 15 MW industrial wind turbines off the coast of the Atlantic provinces!

Mr. Nicholson ignores facts such as those from Robert Bryce who in a recent article stated:  “The only thing dumber than onshore wind energy is offshore wind energy. The good news for ratepayers, taxpayers, birds, bats, landscapes, viewsheds, and the critically endangered North Atlantic Right Whale, is that both sectors are getting hammered by market forces that make their projects uneconomic.“  Bryce’s article noted how many renewable wind energy companies were busy abandoning projects they had been awarded by various government bodies and paying multimillion dollar penalties. They were faced with losing money due to “inflation, supply chain disruptions, and sharp interest rate hikes“ causing huge spikes in costs and putting them in the position of losing money on the projects they had been awarded. It became cheaper for them to simply pay those multimillion penalties! What that means is those government bureaucracies who awarded the contracts will need to seek other solutions to achieve their “net-zero” targets.

Conclusion

It seem obvious Peter Nicholson based his report not on current facts about offshore wind and instead created his report with the intention to keep his bureaucratic benefits flowing!  We should find it shameful the current government and those supporting it such as the CCI and the PPF continue their biased push and ignore facts while living off the avails of taxpayers!

There is nothing forthcoming from them demonstrating their claim to be an “independent and unbiased” organization.   

Fossil Fuels are Needed to Create and Charge EV Batteries—Who Knew?

The foregoing question is one “climate change” green advocates totally ignore when pushing their agenda to eliminate fossil fuel use in the developed countries around the world. 

The fascinating issue surrounding the above is: eco-warriors insist we convert our ICE (internal combustion engines) cars, trucks, buses, etc. etc. to battery powered ones while eliminating any and all fossil fuel electricity generation from our electricity grids. Those “electricity grids” however, are expected to generate sufficient power to charge those batteries powering those ICE while also providing electricity to heat and cool our homes, supply our businesses, etc. etc. Batteries will also be used for electricity storage.  As one would expect, the forecast demand for increased electricity generation is astronomical as is the projected cost and reliability of both our generation sources and grids resulting from the push.

Those pushing the use of batteries also seem to ignore the fact China currently has 60.4% of the world’s battery market share.

Eco-warriors Push Wind and Solar Generation to Eliminate Fossil Fuel Use

Needless to say, those committed to the advocacy that fossil fuel use and carbon emissions must be eliminated to “save the planet” push wind and solar generation as the panacea. They continue to suggest it is the “cheap” and best alternative but here in Ontario where we have 4,940 MW of grid connected IWT (industrial wind turbines) they don’t bother to notice when we experience their failure.

Industrial Wind Turbines Demonstrate their Failure

The past three days are examples of their failure!  For the full 24 hours on September 29^th those 4,940 MW of IWT managed to only generate 5,583 MWh or 4.7% of their capacity and on the 30^th their total generation was a miserly 2,780 MWh or 2.3% of their capacity and finally on October 1^st they reached total generation of 3,279 MWh or 2,7% of their capacity. During the peak hour of each of those days they respectively delivered, 1.4%, 0.9% and 1.8% yet their capacity represents 13% of grid connected capacity according to IESO, Ontario’s grid operator.  Needless to say, the gas plants ramped up and down over those three days to produce the electricity needed to keep our lights on while those IWT were failing!

The Toronto Star’s Fiction Writer

It was amusing that while those IWT with their “first-to-the-grid” rights were failing to deliver needed power on those three relatively low demand days the TorStar’s top “fiction writer”, Marco Chown Oved penned a lengthy article titled: “Ontario gas plants were supposed to run only during peak periods. Instead they’re running most of the time, polluting the air you breathe“.  Needless to say, he managed to get quotes from representatives of those entities and individuals pushing the “net-zero” objectives and used one-sided information from the IEA, IPCC, and the CER (Canada Energy Regulator) to make the case. 

Former Mayor of Toronto, David Miller was included with comments as was a current Toronto Councilor, Paula Fletcher along with Peter Tabuns, energy critic for the Ontario NDP and Ontario Green Party leader Mike Schreiner! The article bashes the fact natural gas “peaking plants” were needed to operate. Quotes from the prejudiced groups included Greenpeace and Environmental Defence and supported the full theme of the “investigation” alluded to by the author. The theme suggested those gas plants were operating when they weren’t needed and went on to claim renewable energy such as wind and solar were cheap and could be coupled with battery storage.  The author of the article obviously failed to do a real “investigation” which would have disclosed, without a doubt, the inability of those IWT to generate power necessary to avoid blackouts in the province and the fact they are paid at rates well above all other sources of generation.

The article also fails to note how Ontario taxpayers are burdened with $6.5 billion dollars annually, simply to absorb some of the costs of our existing wind and solar generation. 

It is disgusting to realize an article such as this along with the individuals cited to push the theme, are using our tax dollars that will crater our economy while it creates further energy poverty!

Battery Manufacturing Uses Fossil Fuels

Kansas First

 There currently appears to be a move in the developed world countries to try and capture some of that 60.4% of battery manufacturing that China has, and the politicians are doing that utilizing our tax dollars.

The fascinating issue about that is some of those attempts are leading to more demand for fossil fuel generation as noted in a recent article out of Kansas.  Panasonic is building a US$4 billion battery plant in De Sota, Kansas and is also slated to receive US$6.8 billion from President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act. Panasonic needs reliable power so that has resulted in an extension in the life of a coal-fired power plant in Kansas.

Ontario Second

The article mentions Capital Power’s natural gas fired generating plant in Windsor. That plant will need to burn a lot of natural gas to ensure the Stellantis EV battery plant in Windsor has reliable electricity  available 24/7, 365 days a year that wind turbines and solar panels cannot provide.  The reliable, non-intermittent, electricity to the EV battery plant will also be supplied by Atura’s (OPG’s) Brighton Beach gas fired generating station in Windsor. The EV battery plant will also use natural gas for space heating, water heating and battery production processes.

Enbridge filed an application to the OEB for approval of a $358 million pipeline required to supply the gas plants and the Stellantis EV battery plant. The pipeline is uneconomic because Stellantis, Atura, and Capital Power have refused to pay a contribution that would cover the full cost of providing them with gas service.  Therefore, the pipeline, if approved by the OEB, will require a subsidy from gas ratepayers for more than 40 years. 

Federal and Provincial governments have already promised $15 billion in subsidies to Stellantis but that’s not enough. Stellantis also wants subsidies from gas ratepayers. You can read all about it on the OEB website under the docket EB-2022-0157 “Panhandle Regional Expansion Project”. The hearings will be available live on You Tube.

 Now, “isn’t that ironic” as Canadian singer Alanis Morrisette might say about the above!

Conclusion

It is obvious the “energy transition” will require lots of subsidies from taxpayers and ratepayers, and apparently lots of natural gas. It’s seem weird those “investigate” reported at the Toronto Star fail to recognize those basic facts!

Three Days of Wind Doldrums in Ontario but Natural Gas Plants Came to the Rescue

We should all hope the last three days (September 9^th, 10^th and 11^th) associated with electricity generation in Ontario serves as a lesson to our politicians that IWT (industrial wind turbines) are not the panacea for reducing our dependence on fossil fuels such as natural gas!

Over the 72 hours of the above three days IESO reported the total generated power of those grid connected IWT was a miserly 10,912 MWh or an average of only 151 MW per hour. That average barely provided us Ontarians with 1% of our demand for most of those hours and clearly demonstrated their intermittent and unreliable nature. For many hours they actually generated less than 1% and that was particularly true during the higher demand times during the day and into the early evening hours. The average generation of the IWT total grid connected capacity of 4,900 MW was 3.1%!

One should wonder why our politicians and the supporting bureaucrats have bothered to contract for IWT capacity as it’s intermittency is a known fact?  Oh yes, it must have something to do with eliminating fossil fuels as they reach to achieve that elusive “net-zero” target pushed by the many “climate change” advocates!

Natural Gas to the Rescue

While those IWT were almost absent over the three days we ratepayers were lucky the natural gas generation plants were at the ready and over the 72 hours produced 243,550 MWh for an average of 3,383 MW per hour. During the many high demand hours those gas plants generated over 5,000 MW meaning in only two hours they generated what those IWT were only able to do in 72 hours.

CanREA Continue to Push for More Costs to Canada’s Electricity Sector

What is particularly obnoxious are claims made by CanREA (Canadian Renewable Energy Association)  which ignore actual facts about IWT and instead make the claim; “From coast to coast to coast, wind is a winner”! They are not bragging about the ability of wind to generate power and instead tout the fact there was an increase in IWT installations of 1 GW (gigawatt) or 7.1% last year increasing it to 15.3 GW (15,300 MW) in Canada.  No mention is made of actual generation by those IWT as they simply incent our naive politicians to continue the process of increasing the costs of our energy needs. The foregoing is continued despite the fact Canada’s electricity sector is a very small contributor to our CO 2 emissions.

Energy Storage

Needless to say there is a growing recognition that both wind and solar generation are both intermittent and unreliable so not only has Ontario’s Minister of Energy appeared to recognize that fact but has instructed IESO to procure 2,500 MW of storage capacity.  CanREA is in full support and has blessed the directive the Minister gave IESO! The first major contract has been awarded via a BESS (battery energy storage system) to Oneida Energy Storage Project a 250 MW BESS capable of storing 1000 MWh which could be dispatched over four hours. The cost of the Oneida project appears to be in the neighbourhood of $800 million and about 27% of that ($220 million) came from us taxpayers.

Referring to the above three days let’s have a look at how much BESS would be needed to keep the lights on in Ontario without the 243,550 MWh those gas plants provided!   

The math is relatively simple utilizing the Oneida costs as those BESS units are able to store four (4) hours of their rated capacity meaning the 243,550 MWh supplied by those gas plants would require approximately 60,880 MW (243,550/4 = 60,880) of storage.  Going further the total BESS MW Oneida related capacity required would be 24,350 MW (60,880 MW/250 MW = 243 units) or 243 Oneida BESS units! Assuming no increase or decrease in BESS costs of $800 million the 243 additional storage units would bring the costs for energy storage to $194 billion (243 X $800 million).  Based on the 15.3 GW of IWT spread from coast to coast in Canada the costs of BESS units would cost a minimum of $600 billion and even more than the 2023 annual budget with spending estimated at $432.9 billion.

We should expect the BESS units would last for a maximum of 20 years so the additional cost burdens on Ontario ratepayers would be a minimum of $10 billion per year just to cover the capital costs without allowing for any profit margin. The other fact not included is the deterioration via the loss of battery storage power that occurs over the 20 years meaning they slowly lose their ability to provide the power needed to keep the lights on. 

Another issue is their disposition after they have reached their end of life which if you’re a politician you won’t worry about as you would have retired so the costs of that disposition would fall on future politicians and the taxpayers they represent.

Assumptions

The above cost estimates make the assumption the BESS units would have been fully charged prior to the first day but during the summer months that is a rash assumption as IESO’s annual forecasts rate those grid connected IWT as only able to generate one third of the power they generate during our Ontario winters. What the foregoing suggests is those BESS units would not be able to count on those IWT to produce the power to charge them meaning nuclear or hydro would be required and if so at what cost as that would simply put yet another layer of costs on the shoulders of all ratepayers.

Conclusion

It appears evident our politicians either have bought into the concept our electricity sector with only 7.7% of our total emissions (52 megatons in 2021) must achieve “net-zero” to save the planet from “climate change” or they have no skill sets associated with mathematics as those emissions represent a meager 0.0014% of total global emissions which were 36.3 gigatons! No one would notice that reduction except (perhaps) for Steven Guilbeault, Canada’s Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.

Math skills should be a prerequisite for each and everyone running for municipal, provincial or federal positions so they can calculate the damage they do to their city, province or country!

Battery Storage Replacing Natural Gas Plants Will Cost Tens of Billions in Ontario

August 9, 2023, as it turns out was (so far) one of Ontario’s top ten demand days in the current year peaking at 21,281 MW during Hour 17 (hour ending at 5 PM). Over the day our natural gas plants generated 91,499 MWh or about what 3 million households consume daily. At the same time the wind must have been blowing as those IWT (industrial wind turbines) generated 18,784 MWh which was 16% of their capacity and much higher than other warm summer days. To top things off for the day we were a net importer of 10,489 MWh from Quebec including 1,117 MWh during our peak Hour 17.  It is worth noting Hydro Quebec recently expressed concerns they will face a power shortage of over 100 TWh (terawatt hours) by 2027 so we can’t count on them to supply any shortfall in the future.

The above reminded yours truly of a prior article about the Oneida Battery storage contact award and the push by environmental activists, such as our Federal Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, Steven Guilbeault, to shut down all natural gas generation. It also includes Ontario Minister of Energy, Todd Smith, who has asked IESO to “develop an achievable pathway to zero emissions in the electricity sector.“

Based on the foregoing we ratepayers and taxpayers here in Ontario should wonder, what would the cost be to eliminate natural gas generation for just August 9, 2023?

If we examine the planned and recently contracted Oneida BESS (battery energy storage system) we are told it’s 250 MW capacity will be capable of delivering 1,000 MWh over a four-hour period. That indicates replacing just the natural gas generation on August 9^th would require 92 similar sized BESS units (23,000 MW of battery storage capacity) to ensure the lights stay on and businesses can continue to operate.  We should also worry that the wind may not be blowing or the sun not shining which would mean even more BESS units would be required! The other concern would be if the plans touted by our politicians for “full electrification” results in a doubling of demand meaning we will need even more BESS units.

At What Cost

The Oneida BESS unit reputedly has a cost of about $800 million* with $170 million provided by CIB (Canada Infrastructure Bank), a PM Trudeau creation along with a $50 million grant from the Federal Ministry of Natural Resources, so almost 30% ($220 million) of its cost is taxpayer supported.  Now if we multiply that cost by the aforementioned 92 BESS units just to avoid blackouts on one summer day it would result in a total cost of at least $73.6 billion with over $20.2 billion of that paid for by us taxpayers. Just recovering the capital costs over the lifespan of those units (20 years maximum) would increase our cost of electricity by at least $4 billion annually or about $1,000 per household.

We also shouldn’t forget that those BESS units would have to draw their charge from the electricity grid so if we had two hot high demand summer days in a row, they would need to draw the charge prior to the following day. If demand was high during the night, they would be unable to charge those batteries unless the wind was blowing hard or the hydro capacity was running at high levels and those generation/charging costs would presumably be allocated to us ratepayers/taxpayers! The use of hydro power, however, might reduce its ability to supply power later in the year as water levels normally fall during Ontario’s summers reducing hydro’s availability during the late fall and winter seasons.

Implications of Dependency on BESS to Keep the Lights On

1. The cost of electricity will increase as will the potential for either or both rolling blackouts and power outages.

2. There will be an impact on communities hosting BESS projects due to potential fires as most fire departments have not trained firefighters or have equipment to fight those fires which release toxins.

3. The disposition of those batteries at their end-of-life has not been considered despite their toxicity.

4. The harm to the environment due to the mining of the materials.

5. The consideration of the child labour utilized in mining for cobalt which is a key ingredient in battery manufacturing.

Summary

Hopefully the above outlined potential costs to Ontario ratepayers and taxpayers is recognized by our politicians along with the impact on the communities that would host those BESS units.  It makes absolutely no sense to try to replace our natural gas plants with something that will only raise the costs and reliability of electricity and cause more environmental harm. 

Time for our politicians to wake up and smell the toxins!  

*Battery storage Costs A recent report from the US NREL noted capital cost projections for BESS as follows: “Figure ES-2 shows the overall capital cost for a 4-hour battery system based on those projections, with storage costs of $245/kWh, $326/kWh“. Those costs are in U.S. dollars so the $800 million attributed for the Oneida project may actually be higher.

Ontario Conservatives Holding Hands with Liberals

A couple of recent events suggests the Ontario Conservative Party who were re-elected to run Ontario with a majority in May 2022 have joined hands with those who helped to create the environment (pun intended) for the Ontario Liberal Party when they were ousted from power and became the minivan party. One wonders why?

IESO Appointment

Back on July 20, 2023, IESO announced two new Board Appointments with one of them being Fiona Oliver-Glasford.  IESO provided a short bio stating: “She has held numerous roles within the energy efficiency and demand management sectors, including positions at Canadian Energy Efficiency Alliance, Clean Air Foundation, Summerhill Group, Union Gas and Enbridge.“

The name of the two highlighted took me well back to my series of articles in early 2012 when putting together the influence Bruce Lourie had on the McGuinty led Ontario Liberal Party.  At that time he, reputedly, created the Clean Air Foundation which became the Summerhill Group. The specific article dealing with the Summerhill Group noted it included “Summerhill Foundation” which, at that time, was a charity.  A recent search of the CRA filings using the foregoing name claimed there was no charitable group with that name, but Lourie has the habit of changing names of entities he creates, presumably, to avoid scrutiny? In any event the fact that IESO’s new Board member was or still is associated with Lourie is disturbing as Lourie himself is a past member of IESO’s Board and was appointed to the Board of the OPA (Ontario Power Authority), created to execute the contracts with the wind and solar companies under the GEA.  He was also a board member of the Ontario Trillium Foundation.

So we should wonder, will Oliver-Glasford’s past relationship with Lourie result in her pushing the “electrification” agenda for the Ontario electricity grid and drive-up electricity prices much like the Green Energy Act did?

At the same time we should wonder why the Ford led government endorsed this Board appointment or did they fail to do any research as to the views and attributes of the new member(s) of the IESO Board?  The Ford government has also failed to support the provinces fighting back on the new regulations brought forward by the CN Tower climbing Minister, Steven Guilbeault which is anticipated to cost taxpayers well over $50 billion.    

 Northland Power and their 2023 Second Quarter Results

The other event was in respect to Northland Power’s 2^nd Quarter results which were disappointing!  Northland’s stock price one year ago was $45.71 and closed August 16, 2023, at $23.05 a drop of 50% year over year! Gross revenue for the six months dropped $158,578 or 12.7% presumably for the reason the release of information disclosed: “Electricity production was 11% or 66GWh lower than the same quarter of 2022, due to lower wind resource across the Canadian and Spanish onshore wind facilities, partially offset by higher solar resource at the Canadian solar facilities.“ Sad times!

The following quote came from Northland’s CEO Mike Crawley: “In a challenging time for renewable power projects globally, I was pleased to see our team complete our corporate funding plan this year with the proceeds secured from the Green Subordinated Hybrid”.  Presumably he is also pleased the Federal Budget released by Finance Minister, Freeland included a 15% refundable tax credit for renewable generation so he hopes the wind blows harder for the balance of the year.

Back in the days when the Ontario Liberal Party under Premier Dalton McGuinty were mismanaging Ontario, Mike Crawley was a key player. Crawley was Head of the Ontario Liberal Party and went on to become President of the Liberal Party of Canada. So one should wonder how he has gained so much influence with the Ontario Conservative Party as they recently handed Northland the Oneida Energy Storage Project as their 2^nd Quarter release noted:

“Oneida Energy Storage Project – On May 15, 2023, the Oneida energy storage project reached financial close, as the project successfully completed all necessary financing conditions. Construction activities have commenced, which are focused on road construction and site preparation before receiving the major equipment. Northland currently owns 74% of the project, which is being developed in partnership with NRStor Inc., Six Nations of the Grand River Development Corporation and Aecon Group Inc. Full commercial operations for the project are expected to commence in 2025.“

The strange part of the story is that based on the original press release dated May 19, 2021 from the Canada Infrastructure Bank committing $170 million to the project the list of “partners” did not include Northland!  Fast forward to the joint press release of February 10. 2023 and suddenly Northland’s name appears.

So What Happened

Looking back to March 4, 2022, we find via a search of Federal Government Grants that the Ministry of Natural Resources Canada handed them a taxpayer grant of $50 million and that seemed to spur the Ontario Minister of Energy, Todd Smith on, as he issued a directive dated April 14. 2022 instructing IESO to sign the contract but stipulating 80% of the “grant” be credited to IESO for the benefit of ratepayers and a maximum term of 15 years. If we then traverse to Northland Power Inc.’s December 31, 2022, Annual Information Form dated February 23, 2023 we find the following embedded within the 52 pages:

“In December 2022, Northland entered into an agreement to acquire a majority interest in the Oneida Battery Storage Project, a late-stage, grid-connected battery energy storage project in southern Ontario, Canada. The Oneida Energy Storage Project is a 250MW/1GWh battery storage facility and is being developed in partnership with NRStor Inc. and the Six Nations of the Grand River Development Corporation. The 1GWh is the total quantity of energy stored with 250MW of highest capacity rating/output at any given moment. The project will benefit from a 20-year fixed price contract for revenue payments with the Independent Electricity System Operator (“IESO”) in Ontario for the majority of the capacity from the project. Financial close for the project is expected in 2023 with full commercial operations to commence in 2025.“

Hmm, so the maximum term specified by Minister Smith became 20 years and the “majority of the capacity” has been granted a “fixed price contract for revenue”!  Sure sounds like Mike Crawley, Northland’s CEO used his Liberal acquired negotiating skills to overwhelm the Minister and to hell with us ratepayers! We should assume Northland’s acquisition of the 74% was related to the inability of Oneida being unable to raise the balance of financing needed for the project but who knows?

Conclusion

Mike Crawley seems to have the ability to manipulate elected politicians regardless of their political affiliation which will negatively impact us ratepayers/taxpayers for the next 20 years or more.  As voters we always believed we elected politicians to serve us but that doesn’t seem to be what we experience here in Ontario!

Public Policy Forum Another “climate change” Charity Dependent on Taxpayers Part 3

The following will attempt to look at certain aspects of PPF to enlighten readers on the many parties who appear to have an undue influence on the material prophesized in so many articles appearing in the PPF’s website. Please bear in mind this is but a scratch to the surface of this reputedly “non-partisan” think tank. Part 1 looked at the funding sources and Part 2 reviewed certain aspects of their recent publication titled: “Project of the Century”, “A Blueprint for Growing Canada’s Clean Electricity Supply – and Fast“.

When a website such as the PPF claiming to be “non-partisan” allows you to search their domain by specifics is a relatively easy task to determine if their claims are challenged within their confines.

Does Science and/or Historical Data Matter? 

As a result of the foregoing search yours truly went through the exercise of using quotation marks (“”) in my search for the following true climate scientists, etc. to see if any had been referenced or quoted!  Those searched for included Ross Mckitrick, Patrick Moore, Tony Heller, Judith Curry, Bjorn Lomberg, Roger Pielke, Michael Shellenberger, Steven McIntyre and Steven Koonin!

The result was zero (0) references to any of the foregoing well respected academics who have frequently dispelled and proven claims made by “climate change” advocates are fabricated! So we should wonder, did the PPF use data from others who are more knowledgeable or are we being scammed?

Those the PPF Cite Frequently

Well, from all appearances it seems the PPF prefers information (sarcasm intended) from those groups and charitable organizations who are fully on board with the premise mankind is responsible for any and all “climate” related occurrences!

Again, a search on the website discloses an apparent love affair with the WEF (World Economic Forum) as they are cited twenty (20) times and several authors or co-authors of studies and articles were or are associated in some way with the WEF as either members, former members or “young global leaders”.

Going beyond the above a search of the members of the Strathmere Group* turned up five (5) of the twelve (12) members including: Pembina Institute, World Wildlife Fund, Climate Action Network**, Environmental Defence and the David Suzuki Foundation as either cited for input or providing information.  Four of them are registered charities with the Climate Action Network being a “not-for-profit”.

If one starts to delve into names from the recent past of senior government officials you find people like Mark Carney or Beverly McLauglin being honoured at the PPF’s testimonial dinners and awards nights for being “far-sighted, unifying leaders”. You also find PM Trudeau’s messages repeated and the PPF’s unwavering support for the focus on climate change.  That was obvious in a Ed Greenspon “opinion piece” in the Globe and Mail in February 2020 where he states; “Clearly, climate change is getting worse.“

In a further search for Board members of the CCI (Canadian Climate Institute) four of them appear who were; Peter Nicholson, Bruce Lourie,*** Chris Ragan and Mel Cappe. So those four represent 25% of all of CCI Board members which as noted in Parts 1 and 2 of this series appears to strongly support the theory the Canadian Climate Institute played a big role in influencing the authors of the report who coincidently also number four.  Reviewing the biographies of the four authors indicates only one has a “scientific” degree which is as a chemical engineer.

Project of the Century and Key Conclusions

Those storied individuals their friendly “charitable institutions” and certain individuals led them to the following conclusions despite the overall estimate of it’s $3.2 trillion dollar cost (see Part 2) Canadians would be saddled with!  We should find it mind boggling they reach these conclusions!    

“There is evidence that, once completed, the energy transition will impose less cost, not more, on individual Canadians when all their energy needs are viewed in the aggregate. An electric vehicle might add to your electricity bill but also might take more off your gasoline bill. While the capital cost of an EV to the consumer is higher than that of an internal combustion vehicle, is that still true once the operating costs are taken into consideration? The same question needs to be asked for heat pumps versus furnaces and air conditioners. Consumers’ costs should be tabulated holistically.“  Despite the brief modicum of sensibility PPF go on to state the following from the CCI which abides by the wishes of the Trudeau government and his inane Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, Steven Guilbeault.

“The Canadian Climate Institute calculates that “on average, energy costs as a share of income for Canadians will decline around 12 percent by 2050, while electricity bills increase.” This downward direction on energy expenditure is said to hold for the bottom 20 percent, middle 60 percent and top 20 percent of the income distribution range.“

They could have kept the article much shorter by simply posting less and boiling their views down to the foregoing conclusions. Perhaps the fact they want to retain their reputed “non-partisan” and “think tank” views along with the taxpayer handouts played a role! Full “Electrification” and or the “Just Transition” was seen by Ed Greenspon as inevitable, as he disclosed in an interview on the HUB in December 2022, so he doubled down to take PPF down that road.

In the HUB interview he goes through the changes he suggests can be made and then states:  “I’m excited about these things. Whether they’re going to work by 2050, I don’t know.“

The above comment should remind one of the Sir Walter Scott lines from one of his epic poems:          

“Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!“

Conclusion

The foregoing brings truth to power (electric) in more ways than one!

*A full series in respect to the Strathmere Group and their influence on ending the use of fossil fuels, etc. etc. can be found here starting with Part 1 through to the final report!

**Climate Action Network or CanRAC is a membership organization of 128 “climate change” advocacy groups in Canada and many of them are CRA registered charities.

***Bruce Lourie is President of the Ivey Foundation who hands out money to other charities pushing his narrative that mankind is responsible for climate change and we must end the use of fossil fuels.

Public Policy Forum Another “climate change” Charity Dependent on Taxpayers Part 2

The earlier, Part 1 about the Public Policy Forum (PPF), dealt with its creation and how, as a registered CRA “charity”, it became so dependent on utilizing our tax dollars to create the messages it conveys.

PPF’s recent article was labelled; “Project of the Century”, “A Blueprint for Growing Canada’s Clean Electricity Supply – and Fast“.  It’s a lengthy article which received lots of media attention and was an outgrowth of the  “Energy Future Forum” (EFF). The EFF was created  under the purview of their well-paid CEO, Ed Greenspon.  PPF was even able to obtain federal government grants of $105K from the Ministry of Natural Resources to move it along! The 5-page letter Greenspon sent to those who agreed to “join” the launch of the EFF in late December 2019 carried the following message amongst others:

“It is the overarching objective of the Energy Future Forum to determine how best to close Canada’s decarbonization gaps in a manner favourable to the economy and national unity – and for the world.   These objectives will undoubtedly take our conversations into the realms of cleaner energy production systems (well beyond the intensity improvements of past); natural and engineered carbon capture methods; displacement of global emissions through exports of cleaner resources and cleantech; electrification of the transportation and other sectors; the application of Al and big data to resources; greater efficiency in heating and cooling buildings; etc. etc.”

 As is obvious if one reads the “Project of the Century” report it appears to lean heavily on the 2021 report from the Canadian Climate Institute (CCI) titled “Canada’s Net Zero Future“. The CCI was created by the Federal Liberal Party under leadership of PM Justin Trudeau and were handed $20 million tax dollars in April 2019 by Catherine McKenna, the then Minister of Environment and Climate Change. The CCI since morphed into a charity under the leadership of Rick Smith, formerly of Environmental Defence fame but have retained their laughable “non-partisan” nomenclature!  The EFF report credits the CCI five (5) times in its report and in respect to the “electrification” process they note the CCI’s report says the additional grid capacity must grow at six times the prior rate of the previous decade. That would mean a doubling of capacity of what was built in the prior century but only allowing 27 years. Hmm!

An examination of some of the claims made in the report suggests either confusion or intentional distortion as the following quote indicates:

“ The cost of wind and solar per megawatt hour has fallen radically, but in practical electricity system terms, that cost is less than half the story because renewables actually generate power less than half of the time. No source of electricity generation is operational 100 percent of the time. But wind only produces electricity at 30 to 35 percent of its installed capacity, less than half the so-called capacity factor of natural gas, hydro or nuclear.“  

One should find the foregoing claim that the cost of wind and solar “has fallen radically” is untrue as a recent indicator noted wind turbine costs have increased by 38% in the last two years and another article notes the cost of solar panels has increased by 50% since the second quarter of 2020. Another fallacy in the above is wind and solar “generate power less than half of the time”! Solar in Ontario averages annual generation of only 15% of its capacity meaning it is frequently absent during our cold winters with short daylight hours.  Wind turbines on the other hand produce average generation of 29/30% but: wind generation frequently occurs when demand is low meaning those wind turbines are paid to curtail power, or it is exported/sold to our neighbours at pennies of its cost paid for by the ratepayers and taxpayers of the province.

Time for some truth to power! 

There was the occasional truism in the EFF article in that it stated: “More regulatory flexibility for natural gas power generation allows for greater, not less, penetration of renewables. One day, batteries and other storage solutions will be available at scale to back up renewables, but that day has not arrived yet.“

The truth in the foregoing was that natural gas generation can be ramped up and down whereas the generation produced by those wind and solar “renewables” don’t have that capability. The suggested “storage solutions” from batteries, etc. is not currently a solution that can store excess energy for a duration of more than four (4) hours.  Now try to imagine several cloudy days or the doldrums for three or four days in a row and grid operators will be regularly forecasting “rotating blackouts”!

In Chapter One, the article states:  “ In its March 2023 budget, the federal government put the price tag to build a net-zero economy at an astronomical $125 billion to $140 billion every year until 2050. That compares, the budget said, with current energy transition expenditures of between $15 billion and $25 billion.”

The March 2023 budget claimed total spending of $497 billion and projected a budget deficit of $43 billion so it becomes very scary if one believes the government will indeed spend $140 billion annually and well over the current annual spending “of between $15 billion and $25 billion”.  The additional spending would have increased the projected 2023 deficit to something close to $163 billion (assumes $20 billion of the 2023 budget is aimed at net-zero spending) or $4,000 for each and every member of Canada’s population.  At say added spending of $120 billion annually to achieve that “net-zero” target it would cost a mind blowing $3.240 trillion ($120 billion X 27 years) and in excess of $210,000 per household. As if to amplify the costs associated with the foregoing it is important to look to the future to see how Canada is projected to perform. That look won’t mollify your view as the “Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development predicts Canada will place last among OECD members in real GDP per capita growth until 2060”.

The net result of Canada’s achievement of reaching the net-zero target would reduce global emissions by 1.5%. In the interim the Global Coal Plant Tracker claims China has over 136 GW of coal plants under construction with another 255 GW pre-permitted while India has 31 GW under construction with another 36 GW pre-permitted. 

Rest assured the 1.5% of global emissions we eliminate will pale beside the emissions that will emanate from just those two counties, so why is our governments (federal, provincial and municipal) so determined to damage Canada’s economy throwing many households into energy poverty.

NB:  Part 3 will look at the interactions of PPF and others of the same ilk in government, etc. and paraphrase Sir Walter Scott’s famous meme; “Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!“

Public Policy Forum Another “climate change” Charity Dependent on Taxpayers Part 1

The Public Policy Forum (PPF) was created in 1987 and obtained “charitable status” the following year. Their webpage states in the “About” sector:

“INDEPENDENT We dispense the best advice, without fear or favour. We are a non-partisan think tank with diverse sources of funding and an unremitting focus on the public interest.”

Sounds wonderful on the surface as we taxpayers are getting fed up with “partisan” charitable think tanks using our tax dollars to give us their views on the net-zero agenda related to CO 2 emissions reputedly causing  “climate change”!

The PPF recently released what they referenced as the “Project of the Century A Blueprint for Growing Canada’s Clean Electricity Supply – and Fast” which the title suggests may make them “partisan” to the views of not only Antonio Guterres,* the UN Sectary General, who recently shouted out: “the World is headed for Climate Catastrophe without urgent action”, but also those green charities like the Canadian Climate Institute (CCI), a PM Trudeau creation headed up by Rick Smith of Environmental Defence fame.

PPF Funding

Before entering into the content of the PPF’s “Project of the Century”, let’s have a look at PPF’s diverse funding sources and other relevant information!

The following revenue summary chart from the CRA filing for PPF’s year ending June 30,2022  highlights their “diverse funding” with only 2.47% coming from “Receipted donations” demonstrating very little charitable support! A review of the Federal Government Grants however, indicates they have received $6,376,446 since the Trudeau led Liberal Party gained power! The Government contracts  file also indicates PPF has received over 50 contacts with many of them under $25K (sole-sourced) and those totaled over $1.8 million. Surely those grants and contracts would not influence PPF’s “non-partisan” views or would they?

Looking further, the PPF claim they have over 200 members and a cursory look indicates at least 60 are public institutions and 27 are universities and colleges and most of the rest are Associations with many being government related ones. That suggests; “all other revenue” (35.07%) represents membership fees as a few of the listed “Government Contracts” even cited membership fees? Interestingly enough the McConnell Foundation, a charity with assets in excess of $700 million in their December 31, 2021 filing with the CRA disclosed they donated $235K to PPF which is remarkably close to what PPF claim they received from other “registered charities”.  Oh yes, and the Ivey Foundation where Bruce Lourie resides as the President and CEO claim they have donated $225K to PPF over the past three years. It appears that PPF’s total revenue of just over $6 million seems to consist of both direct tax dollars and taxpayer supported revenue. It seems difficult to recognize all those tax dollars handed out are a “diverse” source of funding as the PPF claim!

As an aside to the above noted McConnell Foundation contribution; they cite PPF in a report they released titled Social Innovation in Canada with the following: “The Public Policy Forum’s recent report, The Shattered Mirror: News, Democracy and Trust in the Digital Age, depicts a deepening crisis in Canadian journalism, reflecting global trends. In pointing out how the loss of “civic function journalism” puts democracy at risk, author Edward Greenspon (2017) recommends that government lift restrictions on philanthropic support for journalism. We could add that charities should be able to speak openly, hold governments to account, and advocate for policy change without arbitrary restrictions “

The PPF, as noted above appears to be very effective at securing government funding and the issue raised by the McConnell Foundation (advocating for policy change) in the last sentence is one that has been happening for at least the past decade but perhaps they haven’t noticed!

The top 10 employees at PPF also appear to be very well paid as the chart from their CRA filing demonstrates!  We should suspect the individual earning in excess of $350K annually is Edward Greenspon a former journalist with the Globe & Mail and Bloomberg News appointed by PPF in 2016 as President and CEO. Not too shabby a pay for someone leading a “non-partisan charity”!

Stay tuned for Part 2 of this dissertation on PPF as we look at their “Project of the Century” and their reliance on other charities for the messages doled out in their reports. The latter frequently  support the push for Canada to eliminate fossil fuels while the rest of  the developed world now appears to be having second thoughts about the push to achieve the elusive “net-zero” target.

*Guterres recently notched it up stating: “The era of global warming has ended, “the era of global warming has ended, the era of global boiling has arrived.”  It brings new meaning to “instant coffee”!

The Nemeth Report: Canada’s Energy Transition Challenges

Dr. Tammy Nemeth, an energy security analyst residing in Oxford, UK is a Canadian who grew up in Saskatchewan so has a great knowledge of Canada, our climate and the political establishment. Tammy kindly asked me to be her guest on one of her podcasts and it has now been posted.

During our 54-minute chat we cover a lot of ground in respect to the Just Transition, it’s affect on our lives and livelihood associated with the energy sector in not just Ontario and Canada but also the developed world.  We touch on the effects associated with the full electrification plan, energy sources (current and future) and the impacts being felt now and the future.

If you take the time to listen I hope you will appreciate the report and Tammy’s efforts to bring out her common sense attitude and the great questions she poses to me.

Find the podcast here:

 Canada’s Energy Transition Challenges — Season 2 Episode 14 — Conversation with Parker Gallant by The Nemeth Report (spotify.com)  

Battery Storage in Ontario is Another Layer on Electricity Costs

Ontario’s Minister of Energy, Todd Smith just released an 86 page plan titled “Powering Ontario’s Growth, Ontario’s Plan for a Clean Energy Future“ and it would appear to perhaps be a reincarnated version of the Green Energy and Green Economy Act (GEA) as it will increase the costs of electricity.

As most Ontarians know the GEA had the effect of doubling the cost of electricity in the province to the extent that when the Ford led Ontario Conservative Party gained power, they reallocated $6 billion of those costs (related to wind and solar “renewables”) to taxpayers! Their most recent budget indicated they increased the allocation to $6.5 billion. So the question we ratepayers/taxpayers should ask in respect to this new plan is what will be the future effect?

In the Minister’s Message in the Plan he states: “looking ahead on the path to 2050, we know economic growth and electrification are going to continue to increase energy demand. In fact, Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator’s (IESO) analysis shows that electricity demand could more than double by 2050.“

It should be noted the reason behind the IESO analysis was a Ministerial Directive Minister Smith issued to IESO October 7, 2021, containing the following:  “As a next step, 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.“*

It appears IESO simply did what they were told to do by their boss, Minister Smith, and is the reason why this “plan” has evolved. Let’s look at just one aspect of the “plan” that will surely drive up the cost of electricity as a result of trying to achieve the “pathway to zero emissions”!

Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS)

The plan has a lot to say about batteries and those electric vehicles they will power, bragging about the VW and Stellantis plants, but say nothing about the $30 billion plus we taxpayers are contributing to attract those battery manufacturing plants or even how they will dispose of the batteries when they reach their end-of-life!

The plan does speak to the planned procurement of 2,500 MW of BESS though and emphasizes the 250 MW Oneida Energy Storage contract noting: “The facility is being developed in partnership with the Six Nations of the Grand River Development Corporation, Northland Power, NRStor and Aecon Group.“

Confusion Personified

What is mentioned in the “plan” however, about the Oneida BESS seems different than other sources when it comes to what we taxpayers are contributing!  They claim the Federal Government via the Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB) is providing $50 million in funding whereas the CIB’s Press Release clearly states they:  “will invest up to $170 million in the half billion dollar Oneida Energy Storage project“.  It also appears the project cost quoted by the CIB differs from that of Northland Power who state: “The total cost for the project is approximately $0.8 billion.“  It is also worth mentioning that the $50 million mentioned in the “plan” is actually a “GRANT” (ie: free money) handed out by Natural Resources Canada and not from the CIB as the plan claims.

The foregoing should remind the reader of a former Ontario Minister of Energy, George Smitherman, who claimed the GEA enacted under the McGuinty led Provincial Government would only raise electricity rates by 1% per year.  Ontario ratepayers know how that turned out!

The BESS Math

Let’s look at the math that would allow Oneida to recover just their capital costs annually over the terms of the contract which Northland Power noted: “Oneida will benefit from a 20-year capacity contract with the IESO in Ontario. Contracted revenue constitutes approximately 60% total revenues, and the remaining will be earned from operating the battery in the wholesale market.“

The foregoing suggests the project is guaranteed to receive 60% of “total revenues” but it’s unclear if that includes just their capital costs or with a profit margin but we should assume it’s the latter. Believing Northland’s total cost of $800 million is the right estimate the LCOE (levelized cost of electricity) is $3.2 million/MW ($800 million divided by 250 MW).  That $800 million indicates the project will need to recover a minimum of $40 million per year ($800 million divided by 20 years) just to cover the capital costs or about $110,000 per day!  Throw in a 10% profit margin and it would appear the project would at say; $150/MWh, need to deliver about 800 MW daily. The foregoing would have to be the amount available after paying the costs for those MWh for storage and, we should presume the “60%” noted above guarantees Oneida that ratepayers will pay that cost.  For the remaining 40% Oneida would presumably seek to buy power when it is at a low cost (middle of the night) in order to sell it back at a higher cost suggesting the 800 MW daily discharge would be considerably higher.  The buy low/sell high occurrences should mainly happen during the Spring and Fall seasons when demand is low and wind generation peaks whereas during the summer and winter seasons the difference between low and high market prices is generally thinner due to lower fluctuating market demand. The foregoing suggests BESS will add to the costs of generating electricity.

The Layering Effect

Couple the foregoing with the existing costs of wind and solar generation and the layering effect is compounded.  Both of the latter sources have first-to-the-grid rights under their contract terms meaning we pay for them whether they are needed or not. In the interim our natural gas plants will be idling but we are obligated to also pay for their capital costs whereas if they were generating electricity, we only pay for the fuel costs plus a small markup. Just another layer of costs! 

In addition to the foregoing the “plan” references CECs (clean energy credits) which the province claims; “Proceeds from the sale of CECs will help keep costs down for electricity ratepayers and fund the construction of clean electricity projects through the new Future Clean Electricity Fund.“  Rest assured those CEC will be sold to companies emitting GHG such as food processors, retailers, small and medium sized business, restaurants, transport companies, etc. which will add inflationary costs we consumers will have to absorb.

Conclusion

The above only highlights the costs associated with 10% of the 2,500 MW of BESS storage the plan states is to be contracted so, multiply that (minimum) $40 million by ten (10) and don’t forget the layering affect!  

We ratepayers and taxpayers should realize the “plan” presented by Minister Smith may well turn out to be similar to that of Minister Smitherman in the years gone by.

*Ontario already has one of the cleanest electricity systems in the World with it being 94% emissions free!