The Strathmere Group Have Been Gobbling up our Tax Dollars

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

Battery Storage Would Cost Ontario Billions to Replace Natural Gas Generation on December 20, 2022

Ontario’s Minister of Energy, Todd Smith should think seriously about December 20^th and contemplate; if we were without natural gas generation, how would the province have avoided blackouts?  What would we need to have in place to provide the 124,792 MWh (what 4.1 million average Ontario households consume daily) our gas plants supplied on that December day?

More wind, more solar?  If he picked those two intermittent and unreliable sources, we would need a multiple of at least five times current capacity. Even then, if they only generated five times the 232 MWh, they did at Hour 3, we would have experienced a blackout in the middle of the night during a low demand hour. Natural gas generators at that hour produced 4,003 MWh (26.8% of demand).

Throughout the day grid connected wind generated about 21,000 MWh and solar 547 MWh. At peak demand, Hour 18 ending at 6 PM, wind generation neared its peak for the day generating 1,341 MWh (6.8% of demand) whereas our gas plants generated 6,033 MWh or 30.4% of peak demand. Because demand was relatively high and wind failed to generate less than an average of 900 MW per hour the market price (HOEP) averaged $82.88/MWh over the day so the 39,000 MW we sold to our neighbours in NY, Michigan and Quebec generated a reasonable price compared to days when the wind is blowing hard and the sun is shining.

If Smith said hydro, it would be sensible, however Ontario has pretty well exhausted its hydro sources near population centers so that’s not an option. We would need to open up the northern reaches of the province and spend billions of tax dollars to build roads, transmission systems and the hydro plants themselves to get the power to where its needed. Not feasible for well over a decade!

Nuclear would be a good and logical source, however the only possible new nuclear we might get in the next 10 years is a 300 MW capacity SMR (small modular reactor) now in the planning stage by OPG.

What’s left then for him to contemplate is either hydrogen or storage. The former is still in early test stages and unlikely to be scaled up for a decade or more. Despite the foregoing the push for it by many European countries is on as they view it as the solution to achieving “net-zero”.  The big concern about hydrogen is associated with possible leaks as a recent article noted: “Scientists have warned that hydrogen could be a significant “indirect” contributor to the greenhouse effect when it leaks through infrastructure and interacts with methane in the atmosphere.“

One should wonder does Minister Smith have a belief “storage” is the option and if so, how much will be needed?  In the near term he seems to have somewhat recognized the fallibility of our electricity system as his Ministerial Directive of October 6, 2022 directs IESO to secure a minimum of 1,500 MW of storage generation and a maximum of 1,500 MW of natural gas generation.  On the former he had already directed IESO to negotiate a 250 MW battery storage contract with Oneida on August 27, 2022 despite the need for a cost/benefit study as noted in a earlier article.

Minister Smith had also asked IESO to prepare a plan to allow Ontario’s electricity system to be fully “decarbonized” by 2050 and in their response titled: “The Pathways to Decarbonization” they included 2,507 MW of storage capacity in 2035.

The full costs of that capacity will be in excess of $2.4 billion based on a recent well researched article suggesting battery costs are a minimum of US$700K (CA$950K) per MW of capacity. Battery storage capacity results in about only 80% of it as being available when it’s needed on the grid, but, it can deliver the rated capacity for three hours.  That means 2,507 MW of battery storage at a capital cost of $2.4 billion could deliver approximately 6,000 MWh before having to reload.

Now, if we consider the generation provided by Ontario’s natural gas plants on December 20, 2022, one notes we would need twenty-one times more battery storage to generate the almost 125,000 MWh they delivered. The capital cost would be astronomical and amount to about $50 billion. Repaid over the 10-year lifespan of the batteries (including a profit margin of 10%), it would result in adding $5.5 billion of annual costs to ratepayer bills. 

What the IESO chart suggests is natural gas capacity coupled with; “New Capacity Online by 2035” in the form of; Demand Response, Solar, Wind and new Nuclear, we will not need additional storage.  Let’s hope their forecast is accurate despite the “Disclosure” on Page 2 stating:

“The information, statements and conclusions in this report are subject to risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual results or circumstances to differ materially from the report’s findings. The IESO provides no guarantee, representation, or warranty, express or implied, with respect to any statement or information in this report and disclaims any liability in connection with it.”

The 2035 scenario depicted by IESO also contained the following suggesting they had some faith in part of their report: “New large hydroelectric and nuclear facilities were not selected due to lead times that extended beyond the horizon of this scenario. As firm imports from Québec would require resource development in that province, they proved to be costly and were also not selected. Finally, with 2,500 MW of battery energy-storage systems included in the base supply mix, the value of additional storage diminished, hindering its selection.“

Hmm, kind of makes one wonder if the “Pathways” report is delivering what Minister Smith has in mind?

An article written by Allison Jones of the Canadian Press and dated December 26, 2022 reputedly confirmed Minister Smith’s directive to IESO to obtain the additional 1,500 MW of natural gas generation along with the “2,500 megawatts of clean technology such as energy storage”. The article went on to claim, “Smith said in an interview that it’s the largest active procurement for energy storage in North America.“ Another quote in the article came from Katherine Sparkes, IESO’s director of innovation who apparently said: 

“As we look to the future and think about gas phase-out and electrification, one of the great challenges facing all energy systems in North America and around the world is: How do you address the increasing amounts of variable, renewable energy? resources and just make better use of your grid resources,” she said.

“Hybrids, storage-generator pairings, give you the ability to deal with the variability of renewable energy, meaning storing electricity when the sun isn’t shining or the wind not blowing, and then using it when you need it.” 

We ratepayers should all be troubled if the foregoing is a quote from IESO’s director of innovation! In that position she should know if the sun isn’t shining, or the wind isn’t blowing there is no energy that can be stored! 

On the other hand, if it’s a misquote by the author of the article, its what we have come to expect from the MSM reporters who seem to frequently fail to do any fact checking. The latter is evident in other parts of the article where obtuse comments are made and accepted with one of them suggesting their company will “make power plants obsolete” using EV and another suggesting “the provincial and federal governments need to fund and install bidirectional chargers in order to fully take advantage of electric vehicles.” No indication was in the article as to what sources of energy would be used to power up those EV batteries nor does the author question those making the statements.

It is readily apparent the author of the article failed to either question those interviewed or to seek other views that might challenge their claims.  Unfortunately, investigative journalism is no longer within the purview of those associated with the mainstream media.

Conclusion

Natural gas is a fossil fuel that benefits mankind in many ways and the cold December day we Ontario residents recently experienced clearly demonstrated how it is needed until something better comes along. It is self-evident the “something better” is clearly not battery storage.

Let’s turn up the heat on our Ministry of Energy and the many reporters in the media who message us with the propaganda perpetrated by those who want us to freeze in the dark!

Affordable Housing in Ontario and the Sky is Falling According to Eco-Warriors

According to the eco-warriors using 7,400 acres (0.37%) of the 2 million acres of the Greenbelt land for the creation of “affordable housing” is something that should never be allowed so about 200 of them joined together to sign a letter making their views known. While they have expressed some legitimate concerns with Bill 23 and its negative effects on “conservation authorities” they have failed to recognize the unaffordable nature of housing affecting so many Ontario families.  The CBC reported that a request by the leader of the Ontario Green Party has gone to the Government of Ontario’s Integrity Commissioner asking for an investigation as to whether the plan has broken ethics rules. Those 7,400 acres could easily accommodate well over 74,000 homes or more in local municipalities and somewhat contain climbing house prices in the province but that goes against the wishes of those out to save the planet from “climate change” or what used to be referred to by them as “global warming”! 

Many of those same eco-warriors back in the days of the McGuinty/Wynne led government(s) pushed for the creation of the Greenbelt. They were rewarded by the allocation of those 2 million acres as protected land even though large portions of it were close to communities where housing needs were growing. At the same time the “charitable” Greenbelt Foundation was created and supplied with Ontario taxpayer dollars which continues to this day. 

The Greenbelt Foundation is a registered charity and their March 31, 2021 report indicates 89.4% ($4.079 million) of their gross revenue came from the Province ($3.828 million) and the Federal government ($251K). Only $12K came via receipted charitable donations despite their spending $479K on advertising and promotion and $1,677K on compensation.

Somewhat related to the foregoing pushback by the eco-warriors saw the Minister of Energy Todd Smith, recently receive a response from IESO (independent electricity system operator) in respect to his prior directive(s) to request a plan on how the province could achieve a full “decarbonization” of the electricity system.  The minister had issued those directives even though the current electricity system in Ontario is already slightly over 92% emissions free.

The IESO responded with their December 15, 2022 Pathways to Decarbonization a 39 page report that predicts by 2050 Ontario’s capacity will be 88,000 MW (megawatts) versus what the report claims is now 42,000 MW.  We assume the latter includes all DER (distributed energy resources) such as about 2,200 MW of solar, 600 MW of IWT (industrial wind turbines) small hydro, combined heat and power plants, battery storage, electric vehicles, and consumers who reduce electricity use on demand.

The ”Pathways” to get to that 88,000 MW include some interesting turnarounds by the Premier Ford led government who killed the GEA (Green Energy Act) enacted by former Premier McGuinty but now appears determined to make life for Ontarians much worse and more expensive.  The plan put forward by IESO will mean by 2050 Ontario will be reputedly powered by the generation sources in the following chart!

IESO’s estimate of the costs are as low as $375 billion to a high of $425 billion including substantial expenditures on transmission systems.  The report estimates electricity costs would rise to $200/$215/MWh. It is important to note IESO don’t hypothesize on the individual costs of the additional 68,793 MW by source such as the 15,000 MW of hydrogen or nuclear, but they do suggest the province had better start working soon as timelines for new transmission lines and the additional 17,800 MW of nuclear will be a long-drawn-out process. We should also be pretty sure their estimate on the cost of those 15,000 MW of hydrogen is more like a guess rather then a fact based estimate.

It is also interesting IESO includes an addition of 6,000 MW of solar capacity and 17,600 MW of IWT (industrial wind turbines) capacity as part of the “decarbonization” process as both are intermittent and frequently unreliable.  IWT also have the bad habit of causing harm to humans as well as decimating birds and bats.  It is likely those new planned IWT will receive considerable pushback by many municipalities throughout the province.  The latter is a factor as municipalities now have the power to deny access.  One should wonder if the Ford government will legislate; the power to deny access for IWT, is no longer an option for municipalities in their move to decarbonize the electricity sector?

Looking further at the planned addition of IWT and solar throughout the province will also mean the loss of considerable land for both farming and nature as both energy sources require either (or both) land clearing and/or farmland reductions. 

Based on estimates of what land will be required for the additional wind and solar generation should make the eco-warriors very upset.  Land required per MW of IWT varies from 2 acres/MW to 40 acres/MW of capacity so the 17,600 MW would need 35,200 acres on the low side to as much as 704,000 acres on the high side.  The additional 6,000 MW of solar could require as little as 5 acres/MW on the low side or up to 10 acres/MW on the high side meaning as little as 30,000 acres or as much as 60,000 acres.  What the foregoing suggests is both the additional IWT and solar could easily be accommodated on the Greenbelt’s 2 million acres. 

We should wonder how those 200 eco-warriors, who signed the letter to stop “affordable housing” on the Greenbelt, would feel, if the foregoing is the eventual conclusion as to where those wind turbines and solar panels in IESO’s “decarbonization” plan are destined for?

Wouldn’t that make the Greenbelt even greener with all those carbon free generating sources?

Is Hydrogen the Answer to Reaching Net-zero—Apparently, it’s not!

The following was sent to me by a contact with the “knowledge, skills sets and experience to highlight the fallacies of pushing the green hydrogen agenda” and it’s related to the concepts of my prior articles about “energy storage”. NB: the knowledge he displays in the following are beyond the scope of yours truly!

Text from the contact!

“Hi Parker

Converting “excess” electrical generation by electrolysers (e.g. as built by Hydrogen Optimized in Owen Sound), will permit wind generators (like Enbridge, K2 Wind, etc.) to operate at maximum possible output even when the electrical demand is low (like at night), so that the proponents (like Enbridge at their “Power to Gas” pilot plant in Markham, or Calsun at their proposed plant at the former Bluewater Youth Detention Centre) can make BIG money producing “green” hydrogen, thereby ensuring lots of Government (i.e taxpayer) support.  

The wind generators (like Enbridge) will be able to be paid full price for their power, approximately $135 a MWh or so, instead of the somewhat reduced rate paid for curtailed power. However, they will be able to buy the surplus at about $0 to $10 a MWh, to produce hydrogen, to add to their distribution system, so when electrical demand is high, they can sell it to natural gas generators to produce power to sell at maybe $200 a MWh.  Yes, they certainly win.  

The consumer, well, let’s see. We’ll pay $135 for the bought wind power, sell it for $10, and then buy it again at $200, so the consumer cost is maybe $125 + $ 200 = $325 a MWh.  (About 4 x the price paid for nuclear generated power in Ontario).  The more surplus we create, the more we’ll be able to sell at low price, and buy back at high price, so the cost for us will go up even more.

Winners = Enbridge, Hydrogen Optimized, Carlsun, and the Government policy hacks who want a hydrogen economy.  

Losers = those who live near wind farms (present and future, as there will be more justified), the electrical consumers, and taxpayers.

You can do a google search for Forbes March, 29, 2022 for their article, “Gas Utilities are Promoting Hydrogen, but it could be a dead end for consumers and the climate.”  Admittedly it is a biased article (every writer has their agenda) and in this case the writer’s agenda is that full electrification of the economy is better for the environment than burning natural gas.

Some highlights from the article, and the logical extension from them:

• 26 projects to add hydrogen to natural gas lines have been proposed across 12 states since 2020  (so, nearly everybody is doing it!).
• BUT, the blend can only be from 5% to 20% hydrogen in the natural gas lines  (elsewhere I read 7% max) as consumer appliances can only safely burn a blend up to that concentration.
• It’s not clear what adding hydrogen to the natural gas lines at the Bluewater Detention Centre will mean to % hydrogen in the lines locally, but the amount added will probably not be huge.
• Burning hydrogen (H2) produces less energy than natural gas (methane, or CH4) so a 20% blend would reduce greenhouse gas emissions only 6% to 7% as you lose energy in electrolysis.
• price of green hydrogen will raise price of the blended fuel 2 to 4X above standard natural gas (good for Enbridge, bad for the consumer).
• burning hydrogen produces water vapour (H2O), a more potent green house gas than CO2, but its residency in the atmosphere is less than CO2, so it is considered to have less impact.  Burning methane (CH4) produces CO2, H2O, and nitrous oxide NOX.  The results are complicated by the fact that methane (natural gas) leaks have an effect some 80X higher than CO2, but it has a less residency time in the atmosphere, so the overall result is considered to be only 25X as much.  NOX has a higher impact yet.  Let’s just say the overall impact of burning H2 is not zero, but it’s probably slightly better than burning CH4.

So is it realistic to consider we’ll have much impact on the environment by producing “green hydrogen”?

in 2020 Ontario’s energy usage was: (figures from Canada Energy Regulator – Provincial Energy Profile), converting all data to Peta Joules for equivalency comparison).

• 1435 Peta Joules from refined petroleum (gasoline and diesel mostly)
• 935 Peta Joules from natural gas
• 514 Peta Joules from electricity (58% nuclear, 24% hydro, 9% gas, 8% wind, <1% solar, < 1% biofuel)
• 37 Peta Joules from biofuels (wood mostly)
• 127 Peta Joules from other fuels (like coal & coke)

From the above, we see that in 2020, less than 1.5% of Ontario’s total energy consumption came from wind and solar.  It gives a rough idea of the feasibility of moving all of Ontario “off oil and gas” to all “renewable sourced electricity” by 2050.

So, if we could convert 5% of the natural gas in the distribution system to hydrogen, that would be about 47 Peta Joules, or if we assume 15% loss in the conversion, needing 54 Peta Joules of electricity (more than 1/3 of the total electricity produced).  Let’s just say that’s unlikely.

In passing, let’s just say the probability of converting all new vehicles bought in Canada by 2035 to electrical vehicles, or vehicles powered by hydrogen, to convert that 1435 Peta Joules that come from petrochemicals of gas and oil as called for by federal law is … well remote.  Does anyone ever consider these things before passing laws?  Does not appear so!

The Globe and Mail published an interesting article (attached below) Nov. 25, 2022, noting,“that while 72% of all new cars in Norway are electric vehicles, oil consumption in the country hasn’t changed.”

That should be enough numbers to set your heads spinning.  Apologies, but every now and then a dose of reality is needed.

Let’s conclude that the governments are all “hell bent” on producing hydrogen and keep telling us it will make a BIG difference in climate change.  Unh- unh,  T’ain’t; gonna happen, but what WILL happen is that costs for consumers will go up drastically, the results will be minimal, and certain investors will become VERY rich.”