Environmental Defence just released a captioned “Gas is Not Green” five page report telling us we must eliminate using natural gas in order to achieve that “net-zero” emission target by 2050.
It’s a very short report and leans heavily on claims by many other “climate change advocates” with 42 references which takes four pages to just identify them. It also flies in the face of an article from the Canadian Energy Centre stating that Canada could become a major LNG (liquid natural gas) supplier to countries that are burning coal and who would benefit from reducing their emissions and pollutants by using LNG .
Here in Ontario we know natural gas plants frequently save us from rolling blackouts when the wind isn’t blowing, or the sun isn’t shining, but that knowledge seems to not matter to the eco-warriors out to save us all from the presupposed “global warming” they claim is caused by CO 2 emissions.
If they paid attention and actually did proper research, they would have no choice but to realize natural gas is a saviour by preventing the loss of electricity supplied by those natural gas plants sprinkled throughout the province ensuring no blackouts or brownouts and heating millions of households and businesses during our cold winters!
May 16th came and went and Ontario’s IWT (industrial wind turbines) generation demonstrated their unreliable nature! Recent examples of the latter are readily available from the IESO’s data files! Back, just three days ago, on May 13th those IWT were forecast to produce 62,852 MWh which represented 53.4% of their rated capacity but it wasn’t needed as demand was low. We should be pretty sure most of it was exported to Quebec, Michigan and New York at cheap prices as it wasn’t needed to keep Ontario’s lights on!
Now on May 16th it turns out the wind wasn’t blowing very hard and for the full day they only generated 11,626 MWh which was a dismal 9.9% of their rated capacity. Thankfully, Ontario’s natural gas plants, with their ability to ramp up or down, came to the rescue and generated 76,842 MWh (what 2.5 million Ontario homes consume daily) at the same time as our hydro generated in excess of 120,000 MWh and our baseload nuclear plants were producing about 180,000 MWh.
The foregoing makes it obvious, IWT with their preferential contracted, “first-to-the-grid” rights, frequently show up when they’re not needed but when demand may be higher, they are absent!
They demonstrated the foregoing on the 16th of May even though peak demand only reached 16,595 MW at hour 19. During hot summer days or cold winter days when peak demand is in the 20,000 MW range, they are even more likely to be absent!
So without our natural gas plants, even during low peak demand days, it is obvious we need power that can be ramped up and down and that basically leaves only hydro or natural gas plants to provide that capability. Ontario has a limited amount of hydro capability and no significant additional hydro power that can be exploited so the question becomes; what could replace our natural gas plants which are also our second cheapest source of electricity generation?
If you listened to the eco-warriors, you would hear them, these days, suggesting BESS (battery energy storage systems) are the answer! For May 16th that would mean to replace the natural gas generation of 76,842 MW, Ontario would need about 20,000 MW of BESS as they are only capable of storing four hours of their rated capacity and then would need to be recharged with surplus energy during low demand hours! What if the wind was absent for yet another day?
On May 17th those IWT managed to produce slightly more power but only 14,081 MW or 12% of their capacity and our natural gas plants once again stepped up and generated 71,981 MW. Peak demand only reached 16,341MW at hour 20!
So, another day, another big shortage without natural gas generation meaning replacing them with BESS would (at a minimum) add another 18,000 MWs of capacity. Oh yes, and what about the power needed to recharge those 20,000 MW of BESS units we needed for May 16th?
Conclusion
It seem obvious eco-warriors like Environmental Defence with their “charitable” status granted by the CRA (Canada Revenue Agency) haven’t a clue as to how we can currently replace natural gas generation to avoid rolling blackouts even during low demand days!
Now, try to realize; how much electricity demand will increase as the current Trudeau led government forces us to heat and cool our homes with heat pumps using electricity while also charging EVs with electricity! The 40,000 MW of BESS storage we would have needed over those two recent May days would undoubtedly need to be doubled or tripled just to avoid blackouts.
We should wonder if Environment Defence, the other eco-warriors and our Trudeau led government think natural gas generation can be replaced with more IWT, solar panels or BESS units or perhaps some unproven new sources such as “green” hydrogen?
Should one scroll down to page 366 in the recently released Federal Budget under the highlighted “Total tax revenues” it announces as one source for the 2024-2025 year, they anticipate collecting $14.9 billion!They clearly state where that revenue is generated from and destined for in the future: “Pollution pricing proceeds to be returned to Canadians“!
It represents only 3.3% of the forecasted tax revenues yet it is still significant in that it is approximately $530.00 for each and every taxpayer but only about 50% of what they are granting to VW and Stellantis to manufacture EV!
So we 28 million taxpayers should wonder: Where are those recycled tax dollars coming from?
The Federal Carbon Charge
As it turns out it will be us taxpayers (residential and industrial) who are providing those “Pollution pricing proceeds” that supposedly will be returned to us, or will they?
Examining the Federal Government’s documents on the “Circular Economy” as it appears to apply, is summed up by them as follows:
“The federal carbon pollution pricing system has two parts: a regulatory charge on fossil fuels such as gasoline and natural gas, known as the fuel charge, and a performance‑based system for industries, known as the Output-Based Pricing System (OBPS). The federal system can apply in whole or in part in a jurisdiction.
Canada also designed its system to be revenue neutral: where the federal system is applied, all direct proceeds from the federal fuel charge and federal OBPS are returned to the province or territory where they were collected.“
Examining the Federal Carbon Charge (FCC) for Natural Gas
The government has decreed they are leveling a charge on natural gas, so it is worthwhile to note that according to the CGA (Canadian Gas Association) what Canada’s GHG emissions are from natural gas. The CGA states: “In 2020 the transmission, distribution and storage of natural gas produced around 10 Mt CO2eq emissions (Canada’s total GHG emissions were 672 Mt CO2eq) ie: 1.4% of emissions came from natural gas! We should wonder how those emissions if eliminated would be even noticeable as Canada’s total emissions on a global scale are only 1.5%.
The CGA also provide individual statistics and note in “2021the average residential natural gas customer used 2,385 cubic metres1 of natural gas. Annual residential gas use varies across Canada from 1,900 to 3,100 cubic metres per year, depending on the climate in the region.”
The FCC as of April 1st, 2024, increased to 15.3 cents per cubic metre so if the average consumption remains the same in the current year the natural gas bill to heat your household will include $364 of those FCC costs!
The CGA report the total number of households who heat their homes with natural gas in Canada was over 6.8 million in the 2021-2022 season. What the CGA basically state is; all households with natural gas to heat their homes annually consume 16,218 million cubic metres of that fossil fuel source. The Federal government on the other hand suggest natural gas can be replaced with either expensive heat pumps using electricity from a fossil free grid at less cost or fuel your electric furnace from those same electricity grids!
If one does the simple math by multiplying 15.3 cents per cubic metre of natural gas consumed by those 6.8 million households the revenue from that charge represents $2.47 billion or 16.6% of the $14.9 billion they estimate as tax revenue associated with the “Pollution pricing proceeds to be returned to Canadians”!
Industrial Gas Costs
The Federal Fuel Charge Rates also apply to natural gas used for industrial purposes and if combined with hydrogen it is considered “non-marketable natural gas”! The FCC has been set at an even higher rate of 20.6 cents per cubic metre for it, in the 2024-2025 year but no consumption disclosures are available for the latter.
Looking at the StatsCAN data from June 2023 it notes; “In December 2022, natural gas deliveries to industrial consumers in Canada totalled about 8.3 billion cubic metres, with over 70% going to Alberta. The industrial sector in Alberta—the single largest consumer of natural gas in the country—received a record 5.8 billion cubic metres in December, the majority of which was used as fuel by the energy producing sector.“
As neither StatsCan nor the CER disclose what the total “non-marketable natural gas” was we will use the above noted 15.3cents per cubic metre to calculate the foregoing. It suggests those 8.3 billion cubic metres would have generated revenue of $127 million for the month of December 2022 and perhaps as much as $1.5 billion for the full year 2024-2025 at those rates if those volumes are constant! The $1.5 billion would represent 10.1% of the forecasted $14.9 billion to the “Pollution pricing proceeds to be returned to Canadians”. Now try to imagine how that $1.5 billion in FCC costs would impact what those “industries” (including farmers, etc.) are producing by driving up their costs.
The foregoing suggests the combined FCC (Federal Carbon Costs) associated with Canada’s generation and consumption of natural gas would collectively represent about 26.7% or $3.975 billion of the $14.9 billion contained in the budget. This works out to around $141.00 per taxpayer so we should assume the shortfall in the budget projections will all come from the FCC applied to the use of other fossil fuels such as gasoline, diesel, propane, etc. fuels!
The price per metric ton of emissions from the natural gas sector for 2024-2025 looks to average around $39.75 per ton but its impact will drive up the price of everything associated with it and have only a very minor (immeasurable) impact on reducing Canada’s emissions!
Maybe PM Trudeau and NDP Leader Singh should get busy and plant some of those two billion trees he promised Greta Thunberg to absorb those GHG and save us Canadian households from this cost-of-living increase and avoid the “circular economy” designed by the WEF!
April 14th and 15th arrived and as frequently happens in the spring, Ontario’s peak demand was low reaching only 15,757 MW on the 14th and 15,971 MW on the 15th with both occurring at hour 20 (hour ending at 8PM).
While those IWT (industrial wind turbines) were generating energy it wasn’t particularly high; nevertheless, due to low demand, it wasn’t needed but due to their contracts giving them “first to the grid” rights, all of what they generated was accepted. On the 14th they generated 35,168 MW (29.9% of capacity) and on the 15th they produced only 17,690 MW (15% of capacity) but absolutely none of it appeared to be needed based on what IESO were selling off to our neighbours in Michigan, New York and Quebec.
At this particular time a large portion of our nuclear plants are down for refurbishment (about 5,700 MW) with several more of them still in operation scheduled for future refurbishment. In addition to the foregoing a Ministry of Energy press release dated April 16th announced a “plan to refurbish its hydroelectric stations in the Niagara region, including the Sir Adam Beck Complex at Niagara Falls.“ The $1 billion refurbishment will commence in 2025 and is expected to be completed in 15 years and add 50 MW of capacity.
While all those refurbishment projects are happening; IESO’s Pathways to Decarbonization forecasts by 2050, we will have both an incredible amount of nuclear as well as 15,000 MW of hydrogen generation (currently an unproven source of low cost power) as one can see in the following chart. One should also note no natural gas plants will be in existence at that time! The chart also anticipates lots more IWT capacity will be added to the grid! We ratepayers must presume the “Demand Response” capacity will keep the “grid stable” while industrial companies will be severely impacted having to shut down on numerous occasions to contain blackouts!
As and when 2050 arrives we should also anticipate (laughingly) IESO’s plan is those IWT will have reached the stage where they will generate power only when needed unlike the recent two days which demonstrated their intermittent and unreliable nature.
The total generation for both of the two April days was unneeded as IESO were busy exporting the surplus power to our neighbours at an average HOEP price of $19.17/MWh on the 14th and $27.41/MWh on the 15th while they were paid $135/MWh! The net intertie exports (exports minus imports) on the 14th (39,836 MWh) and the 15th (51,925 MWh) both exceeded what those IWT generated meaning it was surplus to Ontario’s demand.
The net result of the foregoing was a cost to us ratepayers and taxpayers of over $6 million for those two days. We should expect that cost will surely rise should the Province of Ontario continue to believe we must “decarbonize” to save the planet from “climate change” resulting in an unreliable grid and further creation of “energy poverty” as all those EV and heat pumps gobble up whatever remaining dependable power is available in the future!
Why isn’t the Ford led provincial government fighting back on the inane push of the Federal led, Trudeau government to continue on the “net-zero” target and recognize what we are attempting in Ontario will not change the climate in any way!
Those IWT in the recent two days, demonstrated their innate ability to generate excess power when it’s unneeded and then to reverse course and be absent when it is needed.
On April 2nd they were humming all day generating 93,012 MWh which was 79.1% of their capacity and IESO were busy selling much of it off to our neighbours in Michigan, Quebec and New York at an average price of $29.27/MWh. In total IESO’s intertie data (net-exports) showed 55,013 MW weren’t required to keep the lights on In Ontario which was 59.1% of IWT generation on that day so we ratepayers and taxpayers in Ontario were forced to eat those costs of excess generation.
On April 3rd those IWT were still humming but most of the humming was in the early morning from 1AM to 7AM when they generated 24,894 MWh or 72.6% of their capacity while IESO sold off (net exports) of 15,184 MWh or 61% of the IWT generation at $29.87/MWh.
Later that day when demand was higher IWT generation fell off and for some reason IESO were busy importing power to keep our lights on! From hour 14 through to and including hour 22 IESO data notes we were net importers of 8,940 MW from Quebec and New York at an average cost of $86.89/MWh and almost three times what we sold off the excess power for earlier in the day. Over those same hours IWT generated 9,834 MWh which was only 22.2% of their capacity.
It’s unclear why IESO went through the import process as both our hydro and natural gas plants show their generation fell over the same period based on IESO data?
Fun Facts
The foregoing reminded yours truly of a fun fact related to the push to achieve that “net-zero” emissions target with IESO telling us in their 2024 Annual Report “full electrification will require the grid to increase “two per cent a year over the coming decades, from 154 TWh in 2025 to 245 TWh by 2050.“ IESO’s Annual Report also includes projections of generation from those IWT for the winter and the summer (30%+ for winter but only 15% for summer) but don’t mention their habit of much higher generation during the Spring and Fall when Ontario’s daily “peak demand” is much lower.
The 154 TWh forecast for 2025 also caught my eye due to a recent examination of IESO’s “Historical Demand” which has data for both the top 20 peak demand hours historically as well as Total Annual Ontario Energy Demand! In reviewing that historical information it became clear Ontario back in 2005 had an annual demand exceeding the 2025 projection and it was 157 TWh! Back then Ontario’s population was approximately 12.6 million versus our 2023 population of 15.6 million. What that means is back in 2005 our annual consumption per individual was 12.5 MWh whereas in 2023 when consumption was 137.1 TWh it drops to 8.8 MWh per individual! That represents a drop of 3.7 MWh per person or 29.6%!
Conclusion
We should rightly assume our drop in average consumption from 2005 had zero effect on the price we pay per kWh. We should suspect the cost per kWh will continue to increase as Ontario adds more renewables such as wind, solar and biomass and expensive storage such as batteries to try and offset the intermittent and unreliable nature of wind and solar. There is also the aspect of other expensive generation sources still in the early development stage that are reputedly “emissions free” power such as “green hydrogen” not to mention the tens of billions they plan to spend on grid expansion!
Yes, sit back and watch your electricity costs rise to the point where it will be “lights out” or starve!
Let’s go back a few years to examine how politicians and the bureaucrats did their job. The example is related to the auto industry and specifically to VW who were caught claiming their vehicles powered by a “2.0-litre Volkswagen and Audi diesel engine reduced emissions but they used “defeat devices” during official tests to obtain that claim. As a result they were faced with huge fines in Canada ($2.1 billion) by the Competition Bureau and in the US they were fined $14.7 billion by several authorities under their competition laws as well as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). VW were forced to lay off 30,000 employees globally after settlement!
Today we should wonder what has happened to the Competition Bureau here in Canada and in the US by the EPA related to “mileage claims” by EV manufacturers. Those manufacturers are being called out frequently because their claims often vastly exceed the actual range. One such article: “On Car and Driver‘s 75-mph highway test, more than 350 internal combustion vehicles averaged 4.0 percent better fuel economy than what was stated on their window stickers. But the average range for an EV was 12.5 percent worse than the window sticker numbers, the magazine says. Uh oh.“
We should wonder will the EPA in the US and the Competition Bureau here in Canada follow up and fine those EV manufacturers to the same degree as VW which in the latter’s case represented $20K per vehicle sold in Canada with that diesel engine. We should suspect not as EV will reputedly reduce our emissions! The latter claim by our politicians are humorous when one realizes that most of the batteries utilized to power those EV were manufactured in China where they operate over 1,140 coal fired generation plants used to produce those batteries! So because those batteries are manufactured in China, they contain no emissions nor did they create any, ha, ha!
Other Politically Induced EV benefits for Manufacturers:
Despite all the billions thrown at the concept of “transportation” conversion by pushing the EV narrative over the past several years there is lots more destined to find its way into their revenue stream! One of those in the US are “regulatory credits” which keep growing and will continue to grow as more automobile manufacturers convert to producing more of them in order to comply with the political push. As one example in reviewing Tesla Inc’s December 31, 2023, financial statement filed with the SEC one notes they report revenue from “regulatory credits” amounted to US $1.790 billion which represented 31.7% of Tesla’s net income after taxes. We should suspect selling those “regulatory credits” did not entail Tesla increasing their costs of operation to any great extent!
So we should all wonder what are those “regulatory credits”?
A July 2020 article from Yahoo Finance titled: “What Are EV Regulatory Credits And Why Is Tesla Selling So Many Of Them?“ gave us the answer which is: “Environmental emissions programs around the world, such as the Zero Emissions Vehicle (ZEV) program in California, give out credits to automakers that produce and sell electric vehicles. In addition to California, there are at least 13 other U.S. states that have similar programs in place. If an automaker doesn’t have enough credits by the end of the year, it could face punishment from state regulators.“ The article goes on to cite the following: “For example, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV (NYSE: FCAU) has reportedly committed to buying $1.27 billion in credits from Tesla to comply with new European environmental regulations that go into effect in 2021.“ It appears to be simply more punishment for any manufacturer of ICE vehicles for the benefit of those producing only EV! It also raises the price of an ICE presumably to decrease the difference in price between those nasty fossil fuel emitting vehicles and those non-emitting batteries (sarcasm intended) supplied principally by China!
The scandal, hidden away in the Federal Register, challenges the integrity of the government’s approach to enforcing fuel-efficiency rules for electric cars. Unlike the high-profile cases involving diesel emissions cheating, this scandal surrounding electric cars has garnered considerably less attention. The article notes:
At the heart of the issue is a little-known rule buried on page 36,987 of volume 65 in the Federal Register and articulates it as follows:
The Values to Be Used: Automakers must use actual values measured in a lab environment whentesting gasoline-powered vehicles for compliance with the Transportation Department’s fuel-efficiency regulations. However, the Energy Department has a different set of rules for electric cars.
The incredible SCAM:
According to this rule, carmakers are allowed to multiply the efficiency of electric cars by a factor of 6.67 arbitrarily. This means that a 2022 Tesla Model Y, for example, which tests at the equivalent of about 65 miles per gallon in a laboratory, is counted as having a compliance value of a staggering 430 mpg.” I would note the Car and Driver testing range did not find one Tesla model that achieved a total charged range of 430 miles and perhaps that is why on January 5th, 2024 an article in Yahoo Finance stated: “Tesla has cut back claims about how far its electric cars can travel as it faces scrutiny from the US government.“ The article stated Tesla did not give a reason for the adjustment.
Is the SCAM coming to Canada:
Surely many Canadians are familiar with our Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, Steven Guilbeault’s push to impose his “Clean Energy Regulations”, encompassing rules, to force each and every province and territory in Canada to abide by his views on saving the planet from CO 2 emissions. The provincial pushbacks were extensive so those plans have recently been slightly modified but will still impose incredible harm on the generation of reliable electricity due to their push for a “net-zero” grid. The proposed changes were recently summarized in a article in the Financial Post but as noted the changes are moderate so Guilbeault has sought further input but we should suspect he will simply ignore any that deviate from his inane desire to impose his personal views!
Minister Guilbeault is taking Canada on the same path as California and those other 13 US states pushing the EV agenda as the above noted article states: “Companies would also be allowed to buy carbon offsets to compensate for overshooting their assigned limits.“ The Government’s webpage goes further as it states: “ Canada is joining some of the world’s largest economies – including the United States – in committing to clean electricity to power our vehicles, heat our buildings and support our industries.“ One should wonder who will be allowed to sell those “carbon offsets”? Many of the companies forced to purchase them will be provincially owned “fossil fuel” generation plants in most provinces adding costs to the price of electricity delivered to your home or business.
Based on the outright lies Minister Guilbeault spouts off about in his two-minute video such as his claim the transformation to green energy will create over 2 million jobs as reputedly claimed in the following chart!
Interestingly, it appears the Trudeau led government fully anticipates the foregoing will happen as they already appear to have released draft regulations under tax legislation which only appears to have been noticed by the larger business-related law firms but not by the media!
The Law firm Osler presented a good synopsis of the draft regulations on their website referenced as: “Canada releases long-awaited draft legislation for tax credits supporting the clean energy sector. The article focuses on draft legislation for the “Clean Technology Investment Tax Credit (Clean Technology ITC)“ which will hand out “tax credits” to “renewable energy companies” but the article does not clarify if those tax credits will reduce their taxes or allow them to sell them for revenue!
The article stated the “tax credits” will be handed to eligible companies involved in all of the following “green” technologies:
“zero-emission electricity generation technologies, like solar, wind, small hydro, concentrated solar energy and small modular nuclear reactors;
electricity storage systems that do not use fossil fuels in their operations, like batteries, flywheels, compressed air energy storage, pumped hydroelectric energy storage, gravity energy storage and thermal energy storage;
certain active solar heating equipment, air-source heat pumps and ground-source heat pumps;
equipment used exclusively for generating electrical energy or heat (or a combination) solely from geothermal energy, but excluding any equipment that is part of a system that extracts both heat from geothermal fluid and fossil fuel for sale or use; and
non-road zero-emission vehicles that are fully electric or powered by hydrogen, and charging or refueling equipment primarily used to support such vehicles.“
At this juncture Canada’s production of EV are nil with the only exception being some buses for transit use purposes along with some school buses. Those transit and school buses have not met the standards of similar ICE powered ones creating problems for communities from coast to coast even though their costs were approximately double of what ICE powered ones would have cost. Needless to say they received lots of taxpayer dollars suppled by Federal, Provincial and municipal governments.
While no electric vehicles are currently manufactured in Canada they are reputedly on the way if and when the VW and Stellantis EV plants in Ontario are up and running after receiving combined (federal and provincial) taxpayer subsidies of $30 billion. We should suspect when they are in production, they will be either handed “tax credits” or “regulatory credits” to sell, similar to the US!
Conclusion:
What we taxpayers should be concerned about is how the bloom is slowly falling off the rose of EV replacing ICE as for the first time in a decade, EV sales in California fell in the last half of 2023 and throughout the US dealer lots have twice the level of inventory of EV as ICE. On top of that many auto manufacturers have postponed their planned expansions. In Canada, BC and Quebec have almost achieved the 20% EV sales target mandated for 2026 but the balance of the provinces are well behind that target. The question then becomes, what happens if the targets set for EV (20% of all sales by 2026, 60% by 2030 and 100% by 2035) miss their mark or are not hit in certain provinces? Will those provinces where sales miss the targets suffer from Federal cutbacks or from penalties such as higher taxes for its citizens and businesses?
It sure looks like Canada may be heading for a downward spiral in our economy caused by the Trudeau Government much like Tesla Inc is experiencing currently with its market value having fallen by $188 billion and having been overtaken by BYD of China in overall EV sales globally!
We should wonder, why have politicians and bureaucrats done an about face on commonsense planning due to CO 2 emissions by embracing rules and establishing regulations demanded by eco-warriors to the detriment to the citizens of democratic countries?
Oh yes, EV get 430 miles to the equivalent of a gallon of gasoline and pigs can fly!
The idiom “can’t see the forest for the trees” always comes to mind when reviewing the work of Jack Gibbons, Chair of the Ontario Clean Air Alliance.
That idiom came to mind based on his recent presentation to the town council of Napanee who are obliged to bless an Atura Power (subsidiary of OPG) project that could potentially add another 450 MW of natural gas plant capacity to their existing operations located in Napanee. OPG/Atura already have; four 525 MW capacity Lennox dual fuel plants located there as well as three natural gas plants with 970 MWPS: of capacity in the same location but have sufficient land holdings to add further capacity.
Most Ontarians will recall the latter 970 MW of natural gas plants were originally under the ownership of TransCanada and were to be located in Oakville. The McGuinty/Wynne Liberal government cancelled the original contract which, from all appearances, was related to ensuring they retained the political seats they held in the Oakville area at an upcoming election. The cancellation cost was estimated by them to be a cost of only $40 million but later when the Ontario Attorney General, Bonnie Lysyk issued her report the cost was estimated at $675 million. As it evolved OPG and TransCanada agreed to have the plants located at their Napanee property and eventually OPG/Atura purchased them.
It should be noted the Ford led Government passed the “Green Energy Appeal Act” in December 2018 that included granting “municipalities the final say over the siting of future energy projects in their communities“!
What the foregoing has resulted in doing, is to have the eco-warriors such as Jack Gibbons pop up in any municipality where approval of an “energy project” is sought. If it happens to be for approval of what is seen as “renewable energy” such as wind, solar or biomass he does his best to convince the council to approve it but if it is a “natural gas plant” he (along with other eco-warriors) will make their way to the municipality and do their best to say, “don’t approve it”! Napanee’s municipal council were so overwhelmed by the many presentations they deferred their decision to a further date. Naturally one of those presentations was by Jack Gibbons even though he doesn’t reside in the county, but he presented the council with a pile of “misinformation” i.e.; lies he has spread throughout the province.
Gibbons wants all natural gas plants closed, suggesting their dependable and rampable energy supply isn’t needed. His presentation went on to claim wind (including offshore wind in the Great Lakes), solar, green hydrogen, battery storage and imports from Quebec are the panacea to replace natural gas and are all cheaper supply sources. He also goes on to say those generating sources would provide Ontarians with “lower electricity bills” which is certainly not what all of the European countries have experienced by going down that path. In fact, some of them are refiring their coal plants to ensure they have an adequate supply of electricity during their winters and the reason is principally because Russia’s supply of natural gas has ceased as a result of the Russia/Ukraine war.
The other claim; related to Quebec’s ability to supply us with some of their hydro electricity is also dubious as Hydro Quebec recently noted “it needs more than 100 terawatt-hours of additional electricity — more than half its annual generating capacity — to reach the province’s goal of being carbon neutral by 2050.“
Conclusion
For a laugh I would suggest all municipal elected officials and their bureaucrats simply have a look at Gibbons presentation* to note the many flaws he includes, but first do some basic research to understand more about the electricity sector, it’s complexities and why you should avoid what he is recommending—unless you are in favour of your municipal residents freezing in the dark!
PS: Yesterday (November 20,2023) those 970 MW generated 14,000 MWh sufficient to supply almost 500,000 Ontario households with their daily electricity demand and during the peak demand hour they operated at 87% of their capacity.
*Link to the presentation by Jack Gibbons, Chair of the Ontario Clean Air Alliance:
It now appears “the fox is guarding the hen house” thanks to recent appointments made by the Ontario Ford government presumably under the auspicious of the Ontario Minister of Energy, Todd Smith.
As a result of the belief of the climate bedwetters (which now appears to include Ontario’s Minister of Energy), back in October 2022 Minister Smith issued his directive to the OEB telling them to prepare a report for the Electrification and Energy Transition Panel. His instructions to the OEB stated: “I am counting on the OEB, informed by the work of its Innovation Task Force, to provide the Panel with its best advice on potential changes to the OEB’s mandate and operations, including any necessary legislative amendments.“
To be expected the OEB did what they were told and on December 15, 2022, issued the “Pathways to Decarbonization“. The following is an excerpt from the report:
“In the development of a pathway to a decarbonized grid, the IESO adopted a more aggressive electrification demand forecast. The Pathways scenario illustrates a system designed to meet winter peaks that are almost three times higher than those we experience today. As a result, the system would likely require an additional 69,000 MW of non-emitting supply and 5,000 MW in demand reductions from conservation.“
What the foregoing suggests is that Ontario will need 69,000 MW of new supply coupled with 5,000 MW of demand reduction to replace what our natural gas plants currently supply which IESO reported was 15.2 TWh or 10.4% of demand in 2022. The report suggests a big part of the “new supply” will be hydrogen (15,000 MW) which will require it to be produced using clean renewable energy such as wind and solar if it is to be classified as “green” generation.
Is Wind generation the answer?
It is amusing to believe renewable generation like those IWT (industrial wind turbines) are the answer to creating hydrogen as yesterday, August 28, 2023, clearly demonstrated. Grid connected IWT generated a grand total of 4,335 MWh or 3.7% of their rated capacity while the natural gas plants generated 72,806 MWh or almost 17 times what the IWT did. We ratepayers and taxpayers should wonder: will we need 83,000 MW of IWT capacity to replace those natural gas plants or thousands of acres sprinkled with solar turbines? The latter would utilize most of the Greenbelt and that might even excite those “climate bedwetters” enough to push back or finally recognize their cultish behaviour and beliefs. Today (August 29, 2023) appears to be another wimpy IWT generation day as they have only generated 4.2% of their capacity in the first 11 hours of the day.
What About Storage
We should wonder about that as the Pathways reports suggests 2,500 MW of battery storage which would only be capable of delivering 10,000 MWh over a four-hour period and would also require recharging. If the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t shining however those units would be absolutely useless at preventing blackouts!
Concerns
There seems to be some concerns expressed in the Pathways report however, and they seem to believe the major ones will occur during our winter rather than the summer as the following extract expresses:
“The system becomes winter peaking by 2030, largely as result of increased electrification of transportation – i.e., evening or overnight charging – and of heating requirements in buildings. This electrification also changes the shape of system demand during winter, resulting in spring and fall peaks that are higher than summer peaks. The new profile has up to three ramps per day of 6,000-10,000 MW (see Figure 11), compared with ramps of 2,000-5,000 MW today, attributed to the forecasted new overnight coincident demand from the charging of electric vehicles after business hours and the adoption of electrically powered space heating in the winter season. Managing these ramping requirements would represent a significant operability challenge. There would likely be an opportunity to manage winter demand through thermal storage and demand response, but there is still considerable uncertainty around the impact on daily demand of future heat pump and electric vehicle requirements. Summer demand profiles do not show significant changes (see Figure 10).“
So how they did they reach the latter conclusion based on the current inability of IWT to generate power during many hot summer days? Perhaps they believe going full “electrification” will reduce those “hot” summer temperatures so air conditioning will no longer be needed?
Conclusion
Beyond doubt the “climate bedwetters” have taken over the planning exercise to achieve “full electrification” however, it is somewhat positive that certain doubts are visible. We can only hope some of our politicians in control recognize where they are taking us and abandon the push advocated by those “climate bedwetters” unless their objective is to once again, double our electricity rates in the province,
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.
As pointed out in a series of eleven articles starting back in September 2020 and concluding in September 2021 the “Strathmere Group”, consisting of ten (10) charities and two (2) not-for-profit entities, were out to save the world from “climate change”!
The history of the group and their partnership with each other as well as 21 U.S. environmental groups was inspired by none other then Jerry DeMarco who is at present the Federal, Environmental Commissioner, in the Auditor General’s office. A paper written by DeMarco stated, “environmental non-government organizations (ENGOs) must overcome the “silos” isolating them from one another in order to “think and act like a movement”.
Needless to say, with some minor shuffles in the “Strathmere Group” they certainly overcame the “silo” and now benefit substantially with our tax dollars while we taxpayers suffer the consequences of their agenda which has been totally endorsed by the current minority Federal Liberal Government and supported by the NDP.
The Strathmere Group and their leaders in 2009 were:
Rick Bates, Executive Director, Canadian Wildlife Federation, Gerald Butts, President and CEO, WWF-Canada, Bruce Cox, Executive Director, Greenpeace Canada, Stephen Hazell, Executive Director, Sierra Club Canada, Eric Hebert-Daly, National Executive Director, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Bob Oliver, Executive Director, Pollution Probe, Devon Page, Executive Director, Ecojustice, Marlo Raynolds, Executive Director, Pembina Institute, Sidney Ribaux, Executive Director, Equiterre, Peter Robinson, President, David Suzuki Foundation, Graham Saul, Executive Director, Climate Action Network Canada and Rick Smith, Executive Director, Environmental Defence Canada.
The reader will notice three names have been highlighted above who are; Gerald Butts, Malo Raynolds and Rick Smith and most readers will instantly recognize why! Those three have either played significant roles in executing their beliefs or continue in positions influencing politicians in both the Federal and Provincial governments. Butts will be remembered as being Trudeau’s right-hand man and also responsible for the Green Energy Act pushing renewable energy in Ontario and doubling electricity bills. Raynolds should be regarded as primarily responsible for the Strathmere Group’s formation and mandate. Raynolds was also a losing Liberal candidate in the 2015 Federal election but despite that became Chief of Staff in 2015 under Catherine McKenna when she was Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. Rick Smith moved on from President of Environmental Defence to become President of the Canadian Climate Institute created by the Trudeau government with $20 million of our tax dollars to push the “net-zero” agenda.
Interestingly Raynolds now is the “Executive in Residence” at Arc Financial Corp. whose website states: “ARC is focused on investing in conventional oil and gas and in sustainable energy industries. Located in Calgary, the heart of the Canadian energy sector, ARC has access to attractive, competitive opportunities and a pool of talented and experienced entrepreneurs.“ It appears Raynolds has been hired to presumably get ARC to exit the oil and gas sector and move their $6 billion portfolio into those wind, solar and hydrogen renewable developments that he was pushing when Chief of Staff in his former position which presumably included doling out government grants! Surely someone dedicated to the philosophy he visualized when creating the Strathmere Group will continue his life’s mission in his new job!
Our Tax Dollars going to the Strathmere Group members:
As it has been well over two years since the series of articles about the Strathmere Group, it’s worth looking back over the past five (5) years to see if our tax dollars have found their way into the pockets of the ten (10) charities.
While there were twelve members in the group the “charitable status excludes Greenpeace and the Climate Action Network! The latter is simply an association of ENGO (environmental non-government organizations) whereas Greenpeace lost or gave up their charitable status when being investigated by the CRA (Canada Revenue Agency). The investigation also was reviewing others in the Strathmere Group including; the David Suzuki Foundation, Pembina Foundation, Environmental Defence and Equiterre whose co-founder was reputedly none other than our current Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, Steven Guilbeault. When the Justin Trudeau Liberal led party won the majority in 2015 one of the early things that happened was the investigation suddenly disappeared.
Accordingly, with the above in mind and the stature of some of those signatures on the Strathmere declaration having risen to places of influence within the bureaucracy of the Federal Government, a review of the charity filings seemed logical. A look over the past five years of CRA charitable filings was therefore executed along with a review of the Grants and Contributions and the Federal Contracts websites.
What was Discovered:
CRA Filings:
1(a). According to the five years of CRA filings by the ten charities they reported having received $51,440,000 from the Federal Government, $14,985,000 from provincial governments and $677,000 from municipal governments.
1(b). Those ten charities over the five years have also received $81,723,000 from other Canadian charities plus another $45,208,000 from Foreign parties with a portion of those donations also receiving tax receipts.
1(c). Collectively the ten charities received tax-receipted donations of $253,859,000 but two of the ten charities (World Wildlife Fund and Canadian Wildlife Foundation) received 60% ($152,018,000) of the foregoing with the other eight charities receiving the remaining 40%. Those donations saved the contributors approximately $190.4 million in taxes (75% of contributions) meaning the Federal government deficit increased with absolutely no benefit to ordinary Canadian citizens via improvements to the health care system, reducing poverty, etc. etc.
2. Federal Grants and Contracts:
Reviewing the Federal Grants and Contributions website those ten (10) charities have been granted $48,229.000 over the past five (5) years and via the Contracts website were awarded Federal Contacts of $1,826,000.
Summary:
Looking at just the effect on tax revenues, the ten charities comprising the Strathmere Group basically were responsible for consuming $257.6 million* of our potential and actual tax dollars over those five years. Those ten ENGO are but a small portion of the active ENGO of whom most are charities and receive tax dollars either directly via grants or benefit from the tax deduction used by their contributors. The Climate Action Network (a Strathmere Group member) has almost 150 members including such well known names as CUPE (Canadian Union of Public Employees).
Other organizations such as the Canadian Environmental Network also have members and regional groups by provinces but the website GoodWork.ca goes well beyond the CAN or CEN by linking to various provincial organizations as well as Green Business & Environment Industry Associations. We should be confident that the hundreds of ENGO and renewable energy companies spread across the country are enjoying the benefits provided by all of the individuals and businesses whose tax dollars they receive.
The Strathmere Group merely highlights the waste of our tax dollars to achieve the “net-zero” target of emissions for Canada when we represent only 1.5% of global emissions.
Destroying Canada’s economic wellbeing will not change the temperature!
*Forgone taxes $190.4 million plus Federal Grants of $51.4 million plus Provincial Grants of $15 million plus $700K of Municipal Grants = $257.6 million
Parker Gallant Energy Perspectives 