Witness Wind Cash Gobblers on September 22nd

What Ontario ratepayers expect in the Spring and Fall seasons started on the very first fall day (September 22, 2022) in the current year.  

The 4,900 MW (about) capacity of grid connected IWT (industrial wind turbines) spread throughout the province could have generated 74,442 MWh (63.3% of their capacity) if the approximately 8,800 MWh of curtailed wind is included with the IESO accepted generation.

As it turned out IESO accepted 65,642 MWh and were busy finding a home for those MWh with our neighbours in Michigan, New York and Quebec who eagerly snapped up 61,757 MWh at the average bargain basement HOEP (hourly Ontario energy price) market price of $8.56MWh (0.86 cents/kWh).

The foregoing happened as we ratepayers/taxpayers are obliged to pay $135/MWh (13.5 cents/kWh) for the grid accepted IWT generation and $120/MWh (12.0 cents/kWh) for its curtailed generation given their “first-to-the-grid rights!  What the above translates to is a total cost of $9,891,000 will be paid to the IWT owners. IESO had to sell off that unneeded generation to avoid overloading the grid and cause blackouts. IESO sold the bulk of it to our neighbours who paid about $529,000 which translates to a net cost to us Ontarians of $9,362,000 for power we didn’t need.   

While it’s not unusual to see those IWT operate at levels of 40/60 % of their capacity it tends to always be during the spring and fall when Ontario’s peak demand is low. Yesterday was no exception as peak Ontario demand occurred at Hour 20 and was only 15,584 MW whereas on those warm summer days peak Ontario demand frequently hovers around the 20,000MW+ mark but wind generation is frequently missing or completely absent.

Those peak demand summer days is when the IWT take a holiday proving all they do is add to the costs of our energy supply with their intermittency and unreliability!

Pretty sure most Ontarians will be happy when those contracts given by the McGuinty/Wynne led government(s) finally expire and those IWT are shut down.  Migrating birds and bats and households in rural communities affected by the high decibel noise and the infrasound affecting their health will, no doubt, be delighted!

To paraphrase the Dire Straits song; IWT owners get “money for nothing, but it sure ain’t free”!

Industrial Wind Turbines Once Again Display Their Unreliable Nature

Yesterday, August 10, 2022 was a nice summer day in Southern Ontario and hopefully elsewhere with temperatures in the “comfortable” range so while peak demand for electricity was fairly high reaching 20,568 MW for a 5 minute interval at hour 18 (hour ending at 6 PM) it didn’t crack the top 10 peaks in the current year.

At that particular hour the 4,900 MW capacity of those grid connected IWT (industrial wind turbines) with their “first to the grid” rights generated 642 MWh or 3.1% of demand while representing 13% of grid connected Ontario capacity.  They operated at only 13.1% of their capacity meaning other generating capacity like those natural gas plants were needed to keep air conditioners, etc. operating and they did the job generating 4,862 MWh supplying 23.6% of demand at that hour.

At hour 9 when demand is climbing on a work day those IWT managed to generate only 120 MWh which was 2.4% of their rated capacity and 0.7% of the hours 5 minute peak demand of 16,677 MW.  Natural gas plants at hour 9 generated 2,100 MWh thankfully covering the shortfall of those IWT generators.

At hour 24, ending at midnight IWT were operating at 28.1% of their capacity generating 1,375 MWh however providing 9.3% of the peak demand of only 14,759 MW which nuclear and hydro could have easily provided.  

It’s good to have dependable power when needed and those IWT continue to demonstrate their intermittent and unreliable ability to do so!

Marc Patrone Show on Sauga 960 AM

I had the pleasure of being on Marc’s show today (June 13 2022) where we covered a lot of ground. Our chat included what the newly elected Ford Government could do in respect to wind and solar contracts, New Zealand planning to tax cow burps to get their emissions down, the Line 5 pipeline and Clean Energy Credits in Ontario as well as a touching on a few other topics.

You can listen to the podcast starting at 1:09:20 and ending at 1:25:50. Find it here: https://sauga960am.ca/podcasts/

Net-Zero Looking like a No-Go by 2050 Part 2

Part 1 examined several events related to the global “climate change” push and the damage being caused to livelihoods in the U.S., Europe and Canada.  The news was bleak but a couple of the articles signaled the fallout may be having an effect on how politicians may react to more bad news and that voters may rebel. 

Part 2 will look at other global events that will surely cause more handwringing amongst those politicians!

The transition to green energy and the missing warming

Lets’ start with a recent report from a German Scientist, Fritz Vahrenholt, who describes himself as “a scientific reviewer of the IPCC report (The renewable energy section, not the section on climate science), and says that it was his first view of the report that caused him to become skeptical of climate change.”

The review of his report notes the climb of “CO2 emissions” and their increased air concentration over the past 30 years and the warming over that timeframe.  It then points out that the AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation) has increased since 1980 but is now weakening suggesting a cooling stage of 20-40 years will occur and added to a weakening solar radiation concludes; “further significant warming beyond 1.5 degrees is unlikely in the next 30 years.”  The review also notes a “halted decline in Artic Sea ice” as noted by “European Copernicus program in March”.  This leads to the conclusion; this is good news and suggests: “Wouldn’t it be time for climate researchers to bring these trends to the attention of politicians and the public? After all, politicians are currently readjusting the priorities of energy supply. While until last year’s price explosion and the aftermath of the Ukraine war it was apparently taken for granted that climate impacts would be the sole determining factor for energy policy, we are all now being made aware of the importance of security of supply and price trends.”  We can only hope the foregoing news is actually brought to the attention of the politicians and they listen rather than always accepting the dire forecasts of the eco-warriors.

Canada’s oil and gas workers don’t need a forced ‘just transition

The captioned headline and the article from May 10th in the Niagara Independent should be a “must read” by every Canadian politician.  The article enunciates the importance of Canada’s oil and gas sector and how the demand for oil and gas not only creates jobs for hundreds of thousands of workers but also generates billions of tax dollars that pay for “roads, schools and hospitals”.  It goes on to note “Global demand for both oil and natural gas is firmly back near pre-pandemic levels and rising, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration” and questions the need for the “Just Transition” pushed by the current Trudeau led government!  The article points out “Canada can be the world’s oil and gas supplier of choice, providing customers reliable, responsible energy that is committed to emissions reduction and environmental excellence.”  The article points out world energy consumption will grow and Canada should be ready to step up to provide it.

It is so far not apparent the current government will back off their “Just Transition” concept but they should note the UK plans to classify “natural gas” as green and drilling for it is “environmentally sustainable” as noted in a post in Part 1 of this series.

India going gangbusters on coal — tosses green rules, & wants to reopen 100 old mines

It is becoming more apparent that while countries like Canada are led by politicians who have subscribed to the UNIPCC’s push to eliminate fossil fuels there are still some politicians around the world who are more concerned with their citizen’s well-being!  This is evident with India who did not step up at COP-26 to demands they should reduce their dependence on fossil fuels and didn’t accede to the wishes of people like Mark Carney. A recent article noted “India needs a billion tons of coal a year, and digs up about 770 million tons. Suddenly the plan is to increase that to 1.2 billion tons “in the next two years” and if that means opening 100 old mines and throwing away the green tape, so be it.” India depends on fossil fuels for 70% of their power generation and recently experienced increased demand due to the end of Covid restrictions and hot temperatures causing power demand to rise resulting in power outages. Increasing coal mining will allow them to reboot those coal plants that have experienced a shortage of fuel.

It is good to see some politicians around the world feel their citizens deserve reliable power and are not caught up in what the unelected Mark Carney’s or Bloomberg’s of the world tell them to do.       

US to Ease Sanctions on Venezuela, Enabling Cargoes to Europe  

As a Canadian it seemed very strange that the U.S. Government under President Biden recently decided to ease sanctions on Venezuela allowing them to ship oil to Europe and perhaps even the USA based on an article in the Financial Post last week.  Is this the same President who cancelled the Keystone pipeline during his first day in office that would have carried Canadian crude oil to the US?  The article suggests Venezuela oil may even be allowed to go to the US; “While Chevron currently isn’t allowed to drill for or export oil from Venezuela, the resumption of talks with state-owned PDVSA paves the way for the San Ramon, California-based company to obtain a new license allowing it to resume operations. It also signals that Venezuelan oil may be coming to the U.S., one person said.

We should assume our Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau didn’t jump on that news and call Biden to get him to reverse his decision to allow the Keystone pipeline. Trudeau and his minions like the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Steven Guilbeault, are determined to stop all Canadian fossil fuel from being extracted and sold around the globe.

Huge fire erupts at bus garage with vehicles alight and reports of an ‘explosion’

A bus garage hosting TfL (Transport for London) electric double decker buses erupted in flames yesterday and included an explosion which can be seen on a video.  The cause of the fire is under investigation but as a result TfL has removed 108 electric London buses from service due to the concern it could be an issue with the battery.  There have been similar incidences elsewhere with another one having recently occurred in Paris, France near the end of April and their transit authority suspended the use of 149 electric buses. Apparently this was the second one occurring as another electric bus had caught fire earlier in April. 

We have heard from the elites of the world as well as our politicians that we should stop consuming fossil fuels and use public transit but hopefully this isn’t what they had in mind but based on the travelling habits of our PM, Trudeau perhaps it is as he never takes public transit?

Conclusion

The developed world’s politicians seem to have embraced the dire and criticized reports from the UNIPCC along with the hues and cries from the many unqualified ENGO (environmental non-government organizations).  Couple that with the further embrace of those IPCC reports by the main stream media and it sure appears “actual science” is ignored! 

Perhaps some of these recent events will light up the minds of the reporter’s aka journalists and the general public will get the truth instead of the “disinformation” we are being fed!

Net-Zero Looking like a No-Go by 2050 PART 1

The past several days has made it look like there isn’t “a hope in heaven or hell” to meet the commitments to reach net-zero by 2050. The promises made at COP-26 will be not be met, unless mankind is back living in caves by that date!  The following highlights several happenings impacting the impossible dreams of our elected leaders. Here are a just few that will also make eco-warriors upset!

Creaky U.S. power grid threaten progress on renewables, EVs

The captioned was labelled as a Reuters Special Report posted several days ago suggesting grid failures are becoming a big problem in the U.S. and caused by “climate change” bringing nasty things like; wildfires in California, hurricanes in the Gulf Coast, Midwest heat waves and a Texas deep freeze.  The author goes so far as to claim; “the seven regional gid operators in the United States are underestimating the growing threat of severe weather caused by climate change” claiming he checked data going back to the 1970s! Had he bothered to go back a little further he may have found heat waves, hurricanes, wildfires and deep freezes are not a new phenomenon that has only occurred during the past 50 years.  He did rightly note the “inherent unreliability” of wind and solar “exacerbates the network challenges” and requires grid expansion to get their generation to where they are needed!  The article goes on to cite the increasing demand for electricity that will be caused by all those EV (electric vehicles) charging their batteries but that means a huge increase in spending on the grid!  He cites John Kerry, U.S. Special Envoy who stated: “We can send a rover to Mars, but we can’t send an electron to California from New York.” My guess is if Kerry had investigated, he would find out New York has no spare electrons to send anywhere and moving that “electron” across the county would cost more than sending that rover to Mars!

A summer of Blackouts

Another recent article related to the U.S. in the City Journal (CJ) co-authored by the editor and a “Fellow” at the Manhattan Institute took a different tact. The article noted “rolling blackouts” will be caused by; “the closure of some coal and nuclear plants, and the unreliability of renewables like wind and solar”.  The article further states “the unreliability of renewables like wind and solar” reduced energy surpluses. The article goes on stating; “That’s left some places with little margin for error during peak usage times in mid-summer—potentially prompting the kind of blackouts California saw last year. The warnings have spurred calls to slow down climate-change-driven efforts to retire nuclear and fossil-fuel generating plants.“ The authors of this article make a more logical argument than the Reuters article as it cites immediate problems presumably inferring building transmission systems to carry an electron from NY to California is not the answer noting: “the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), which coordinates and oversees the power grid for 15 midwestern and southern states serving more than 40 million people, has noted that the closing of plants representing significant sources of energy had accelerated a shortfall in power reserves, potentially with dire consequences.”  The article goes on to note upcoming problems in several of those midwestern states including Illinois, New Mexico, Utah and Colorado, all of whom, forecast power shortfalls and corresponding blackouts during peak demand hours principally due to plant closures and intermittent unreliable wind and solar.  The article also mentions the drought in California which will reduce hydro generation and suggest that, in itself, may well cause blackouts similar to those experienced last year.

Bundesbank warns Russian gas embargo would cost Germany 5 per cent in lost output

The Russian Ukraine war has exacerbated the global efforts to meet those COP-26 targets as the European Union has moved to stop purchasing Russian oil, natural gas and coal. Germany could see one of the largest impacts as they had become overly dependent on the supply of those fuels from Russia. Recently Bundesbank (Germany’s central bank) warned the embargo could knock 5% (US$195 billion) off of Germany’s GDP effectively creating a recession.  At the same time Germany has reactivated many of their old coal plants to ensure electricity supply certainty.  The latter will not ensure they avoid the falling GDP forecast from Bundesbank nor will it help Germany and the EU reach their “net-zero” emission targets as they will be replacing gas fired plants with coal which is much more emissions intensive. It should also be remembered by all, that Germany had not only closed their coal fired electricity plants but had also phased out their nuclear plants in favour of intermittent and unreliable wind and solar generation.

Kwarteng to classify natural gas as ‘green’ investment to support North Sea

Kwasi Kwarteng is the UK’s Business Secretary under Prime Minister Boris Johnson. One month ago he was quoted stating: “Net zero is the solution to the global gas crisis, not the cause. Expensive gas is the problem – cheap, clean, homegrown energy is the solution,”! The quote was from a speech he delivered at the Harvard Kennedy School.  Kwarteng is now planning on classifying “natural gas” as green and drilling for it in the North Sea as “environmentally sustainable”.  Pretty sure the “eco-warriors” around the world must be very upset about declaring “natural gas” as green and drilling for more is “environmentally sustainable”!

Not to worry about the above though, as right here in Ontario the OCAA (Ontario Clean Air Alliance) got a much different message recently.  The OCAA paid close attention to a recent debate amongst the leaders of four (New Blue Ontario Party and the Ontario Party were excluded) of the Provincial Parties invited to debate and the OCAA were delighted when they heard Doug Ford declare he “will not be happy until Ontario achieves a 100%  zero-carbon electricity grid”!  We should be pretty sure the Liberals, NDP and Green Party Leaders are fully on-board with Ford’s “happy” target!

What the foregoing suggests is that it doesn’t matter which side of the ocean you live on; politicians haven’t got a clue as to what the truth is!  Their preferences are driven by what they perceive voters’ favour and apparently, they haven’t a clue if “climate change” aka “global warming” is fact or fiction or what mankind’s influence on the climate actually is.

Stay tuned for Part 2 in this series!

Are Premier Ford and PM Trudeau Aware of the Big Stick they Hold to Stop Michigan Governor Whitmer Shutting down Line 5?

   

Lorrie Goldstein of the Toronto Sun wrote a great article about how Premier Doug Ford is sucking up to Trudeau’s “woke” followers in order to win their vote in the upcoming Ontario election. The article described ways Ford and Trudeau have agreed on several different issues. One of those was to fight the efforts of Michigan Governor, Gretchen Whitmer and her push “to shut down Enbridge’s Line 5 pipeline under Lake Michigan and Lake Huron, which carries light crude oil and natural gas liquids, the closure of which would damage both the Canadian and Ontario economies.”

The fight with Michigan has been going on since November 2020 when Governor Whitmer ordered it shut down.  Enbridge, supported by the Trudeau and Ford led governments successfully fought the order, pointing to a long-standing agreement between the US and Canada in respect to cross-border pipelines.  Despite the prior win by Enbridge, Governor Whitmer has recently decided to try again using a different tactic which on the surface looks wimpy.  We should all find it humorous that even our past and present “net-zero” advocates; Wilkinson and Guilbeault as Ministers of the Environment and Climate Change, support Enbridge, according to an interview reported by SARNIA News Today!

What is not understandable is why the Ontario Ford led government didn’t use the big stick at their disposal. If Doug Ford looked at IESO’s “Annual Imports and Exports by Destination” he would see that Ontario over the past ten (10) years has supplied Michigan with about 10% of their annual consumption according to the Michigan energy profile. That (approximately) 10% is supplied at prices that would make Ontario’s ratepayers and taxpayers jump for joy if they could keep it!  During those 10 years we have supplied Michigan with 87,174 GWh (gigawatt hours) at bargain basement prices. Over those 10 years in almost every hour we provide them with 1,000 MWh or more of our “non-emitting” electricity allowing them to both save money and reduce emissions while we Ontarians are forced to absorb the subsidy.

As an example the HOEP in 2021 reported in IESO’s Year in Review  was 2.85 cents/kWh and that year we exported 8,482 GWh to Michigan (49.3% of all exports). In 2020 we exported 9,835 GWh or 48.4% of all exports (about what 1.1 million average Ontario households annually consume) to Michigan when the HOEP was 1.39 cents/kWh. The cost to Michigan for 2019 was just under $137 million for our power resulting in Ontarians absorbing costs of approximately $1.026 billion.  

Another very recent example was April 30th and May 1st when Ontario demand was relatively low with demand on April 30th peaking at 14,446 MW and on May 1st peaking at 15,255 MW.  Nuclear and Hydro would have had no problem providing most of that power for either peak.  What happened on both those days was atypical of our Spring and Fall seasons when the wind blows. On the 30th IESO reported IWT (industrial wind turbines) grid connected generation of 40,185 MWh and on May 1st it was 31,115 MWh. Additionally, it appears IESO also curtailed about 8,300 MWh on April 30th and 28,700 MWh on May 1st!    

The combined cost of the two days for grid accepted IWT generation plus the cost of the curtailed IWT generation was approximately $14.065 million. Needless to say, with low demand we were busy exporting power and 68,890 MWh of it went to Michigan.  Michigan had to ante up $146,000 on April 30th paying 0.0425 cents/kwh and 0.0823 cents/kWh ($284,000) on May 1st resulting in us generous Ontario ratepayers/taxpayers picking up a subsidy of $13.9 million over the two days.

It is also worth noting that approximately 65% of Michigan’s electricity generation is produced with fossil fuels and coal generation represents almost half of that generating about 30% or 30,000 GWh annually!

So, the question is, do we blame it on the senseless IWT contracts the McGuinty/Wynne government signed with “first-to-the-grid” rights or the Ford government for doing absolutely nothing to amend those contracts since being elected? 

Without the latter Governor Whitmer’s Michigan ratepayers are simply enjoying the benefits so; why doesn’t the Ford Government instruct IESO to stop using the intertie lines with them until she agrees to stop pushing for closure of Line 5. Paying for all the unneeded wind and curtailing it might actually cost us Ontario ratepayers/taxpayers a little less! 

The time has come for Ford and Trudeau to use the Big Stick!

NB: It is worth pointing out that Michigan has 320,000 households who use propane for heating and other purposes and they laid out a plan that will ensure their supply is not impacted if and when the Line 5 pipeline is shut down.  The plan doesn’t mention how others like Ontario, Quebec and neighbouring states will handle the loss of propane however.  The plan is dated November 3, 2021 so it is obvious Whitmer is determined to shut Line 5 down.   Link to plan: https://www.michigan.gov/mpsc/-/media/Project/Websites/mpsc/consumer/propane/MI_Propane_Security_Plan_Overview.pdf?rev=90d4da17bbfb482a96fec64e2201b6c9

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 grid15. 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.

  1. https://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/ottawa-hands-n-l-5-2-billion-for-troubled-muskrat-falls-hydro-project-1.5526011
  2. https://www.saltwire.com/atlantic-canada/business/muskrat-falls-power-in-march-2022-could-be-too-optimistic-according-to-pub-consultant-100661743/
  3. https://www.transmissionhub.com/articles/transprojects/eastern-alberta-transmission-line
  4. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunder-bay/thunder-bay-power-contracts-valard-1.5726667
  5. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunder-bay/wataynikaneyap-power-proceeding-1.5340793
  6. https://financialpost.com/opinion/francis-bradley-the-clock-is-ticking-on-canadas-electricity-grid https://news.sky.com/story/climate-change-draxs-renewable-energy-plant-is-uks-biggest-co2-emitter-analysis-claims-12428130
  7. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=NV
  8. https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Russia-connects-floating-plant-to-grid
  9. https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/china-is-home-to-world-s-first-small-modular-nuclear-reactor-1.1698791
  10. https://www.ieso.ca/en/Corporate-IESO/Media/Year-End-Data
  11. https://financialpost.com/commodities/energy/oil-gas/oilpatch-looks-to-ottawa-for-carbon-capture-tax-credit-as-alberta-pushes-six-projects-forward
  12. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsfs.2019.0065
  13. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/79236.pdf
  14. https://www.rechargenews.com/energy-transition/hydrogen-blending-will-raise-consumer-costs-and-risk-public-health-while-barely-reducing-emissions-us-think-tank/2-1-1193416

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.”


Ontario Minister of Energy’s Plan Will Save TESLA Owners 25 Cents Per Day

Many of us here in Ontario will remember back in late 2013 Bob Chiarelli Minister of Energy, shortly after a legislative justice committee investigating the cancellation of the TC Oakville gas plant; told reporters the cost’s claiming; “It’s less than a cup of Tim Hortons coffee a year.” The final cost of the cancellation turned out to be in excess of $1 billion but if you do the math over 20 years he probably wasn’t lying!

Fast forward just a bit over eight years later and the current Ontario Minister of Energy, Todd Smith seems intent on adding another TOU (time-of-use) pricing mechanism to reduce your rates; if you happen to drive an EV (electric vehicle) or are a shift worker. The OEB (Ontario Energy Board) provided him with the report he was presumably looking for with some input from IESO! The report did note risks and this one should be of some concern: “A Low Overnight price design may result in more EV owners charging at home and may overload the electricity distribution grid in residential areas, resulting in blackouts and costly upgrades

If the proposed price plan announced in the April 12, 2022 press release becomes a reality, you can charge your EV for only 2.5cents/kWh between 11 PM and 7 AM seven days a week while the current peak rate of 17 cents/kWh will climb to 25 cents/kWh or 47%.  Reputedly this additional TOU option will save those who charge their vehicles $90 annually or 25 cents per day which will be sufficient to purchase a medium sized “Timmies” each week!  One would have thought those purchasing an EV could afford the extra cost of charging their EV at the existing off-peak rate of 8.2 cents/kWh particularly as they receive a $5K grant (our tax dollars) from the Feds.

The purpose behind the rate reduction for EV drivers appears as an attempt to both reduce our night time surplus and entice people to purchase an EV as the Ford government has been handing out our tax dollars to Ford, General Motors and others to ensure they manufacture some of those EV in Ontario.  Our night time surplus electricity is sold off at the HOEP (hourly Ontario energy price) to our neighbours in NY, Michigan and Quebec and due to ongoing nuclear refurbishment has not been as high as it used to be.  The result of the latter is the HOEP has climbed from its low of 1.39 cents/kWh in 2020.  As examples, the off-peak HOEP averaged 3.9 cents/kWh in January, 3.5 cents/kWh in February and 3.4 cents/kWh in March of this year or slightly more than the 2.5 cents/kWh now (perhaps) to be offered to people owning EV.  

Based on 2021 sales of automobiles in Ontario it appears the prime objective is aimed at trying to justify the hundreds of millions of Ontario tax dollar grants to the manufacturers of EV and some of their related parts.  2021 new motor vehicles sold in Ontario were 496,529 of which only 9,949 were EV representing 2% of total sales. 

What the foregoing suggests is, to achieve the targets set by the federal government; ie; “half of all new passenger cars sold in Canada to be zero-emission vehicles by 2030, and reach 100% by 2035” appears to be a pie in the sky dream!

Despite the above however, we should hope the IESO, OEB and Ministry bureaucrats pay attention to the EV penetration in Ontario before we are faced with the potential “blackouts and costly upgrades” or Minister Smith’s legacy will be similar to that of Chiarelli’s but only for 25 cents per week!

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.

Minister Smith Supports Cheap Charging for EV

Confusion reigns supreme amongst our politicians and that has become more and more evident particularly as it relates to their plans to reach those “net-zero” emissions targets.

As a recent example Ontario’s Minister of Energy, Todd Smith has suggested he wants to lower the overnight electricity rates so the owners of EV can charge them at that time. Apparently, he is convinced Ontario has this enormous surplus of generation during the night coming from those renewable sources such as wind or solar. He also seems to want to shut down all natural gas generation, seemingly buying into the concepts proposed by the OCAA (Ontario Clean Air Alliance) and the 32 municipalities that have pressured the provincial government to do that.

Minister Smith badly needed to do some research before jumping on the bandwagon in support of those municipalities!

Just looking at IESO data for February 13, 2022 might just open his eyes!  At hour 15 those IWT (industrial wind turbines) spread throughout the province were generating 39 MWh so were probably consuming more electricity than they generated. That hour indicated Ontario’s demand was running at 17,128 MWh so wind was supplying 0.2% of that demand and solar was producing 216 MWh or 1.3% of demand. Ontario’s gas plants were generating 3,918 MWh at that hour representing 22.9% of demand

Fast forward to Hour 19 when daily demand peaked at 20,272 MW and IWT generation had climbed to 370 MWh representing 1.8% of demand.  By that hour the sun had set so solar’s generation was nil!  Gas generation at that hour was 6,067 MWh providing 29.9% of our electricity needs!

Hour 19 screenshot

It is beyond the pale as to why, Minister Smith is unable to discern the inevitable future of our electricity system should he push the agenda to allow EV to cheaply charge up at night and close our gas plants!

Is he unaware EV owners are not suffering from “energy poverty”!

Surely, Minister Smith can see how the future will bring us blackouts but perhaps that is too much to hope for from those we elect to run the province?