We are in the midst of an Eco-charities panic

It seems readily apparent the ENGO (environmental non-government organizations) are in a panic mode as the Covid-19 pandemic has swept the purported “climate emergency” from the front pages to the back pages of the MSM. Their concerns are no doubt focused on possible outcomes that will impact them significantly such as:

1.Their fans/donors may be distracted or become unemployed due to the pandemic!

2.Their fans may not have the available dollars to donate to the cause(s) they tout;  to eliminate carbon dioxide emissions by 2030 or 2050 (pick your target) and save the world from a 1.5 degree “average” temperature increase by the year 2100.

3.Those eco-charities who pushing  the “carbon tax” may find the Liberal government will have no money to hand out via grants to them as they did in the past!

A recent example of the panic was evident in a tweet by Tzeporah Berman who shouted out: “It’s now been two weeks since Finance Minister Bill Morneau told reporters that a Big Oil bailout was coming in “hours, possibly days” – and details still haven’t been announced. It’s clear that our pressure is working. You can chip in here to keep it growing:  xxxxx.  Thanks to the growing public outcry around a Big Oil bailout, we’re now hearing reports that the Liberal party is increasingly divided around what to do. This is encouraging, but the government still has the power to announce a massive handout to oil and gas companies at any time – and they haven’t ruled it out. It’s time to pull out all the stops. With our friends at Leadnow, we’ve come up with a plan to splash our message all over the CBC news website, at a time when millions of Canadians are consuming online news like never before. Just several months ago Ms. Berman was reputedly awarded a $2 million prize by The Climate Breakthrough Project so she personally could afford to pay up for the CBC ad to push her anti oil and gas agenda.

Recently Ms. Berman* wrote an article for the National Observer wherein she stated: “our government pouring billions of taxpayer dollars into fossil fuel subsidies years after commitments made at the G20 that those would be phased out.“  Apparently Tzeporah Berman and her loyal followers are completely unaware that none other than the Chair of the Ecofiscal Commission, Chris Ragan, interviewed by Steve Paikin on TVO’s “The Agenda” was asked the question: ”What about subsidizing fossil fuels, what we do to the tune of $1 billion per year?” Ragan’s response:  “We as a country do not have explicit fossil fuel subsidies.”  Ragan was recently appointed as a Director of the Canadian Institute of Climate Choices, funded with $20 million of our tax dollars.  The Ecofiscal Commission recommended the “carbon tax” in Canada should be $210/tonne to reduce emissions so we should expect the same to come from the CICC!

There are many others working to shut down the oil and gas sector. Several groups of ENGO have taken to writing letters to Prime Minister “sunny daze” himself, begging him to shut the sector down:

Green Budget Coalition 

The Green Budget Coalition is made up of 22 of the eco-charities pushing “environmental sustainability” and they penned a letter April 8, 2020 to the Prime Minister, the Deputy PM and the Finance Minister.  The letter suggests:  “Large-scale financial interventions designed with climate, ecosystem, social and economic resilience in mind will improve Canadians’ well-being in the wake of the pandemic, not only in economic terms, but also in terms of the health, social and environmental benefits of reduced GHG emissions, employment in a more equitable and sustainable economy, and flourishing biodiversity. “They also suggest we are in a “climate emergency” stating:  “consider the next steps in Canada’s response to COVID-19 in the context of the unrelenting concurrent crises that threaten our well-being in the long term: the climate emergency and the precipitous decline in biodiversity largely driven by habitat loss.”

Climate Action Network

The Climate Action Network has 105 members and they too have penned a letter to PM Trudeau and CC-ed it to “Federal Cabinet Ministers”!  Collectively they claim to have 1.3 million members; or about the same number as those who just became unemployed due to the pandemic. Their letter states: “The federal government has the opportunity with this stimulus package to immediately and directly support workers in Alberta and across the country while also investing in what is needed to grow and support a low carbon economy, and the kind of economy that can weather storms.”  The letter goes on to state: “Oil and gas companies are already heavily subsidized in Canada and the public cannot keep propping them up with tax breaks and direct support forever.”  It appears they too, do not believe one of their ilk, ie: Chris Ragan, (see above), who stated “We as a country do not have explicit fossil fuel subsidies.”

Clean Energy Canada

Clean Energy Canada describe themselves as “a climate and clean energy program within the Morris J. Wosk Centre for Dialogue at Simon Fraser University” and sent off an “open letter” to Justin Trudeau.  The letter is signed by 11 groups beyond the SFU including CanWEA and CanSIA whose members enjoy the benefits of long-term contracts in Ontario paying above market prices to generate electricity leading to a doubling of electricity rates under the Ontario Liberals. One unfamiliar signatory was the “Canada Cleantech Alliance” which doesn’t appear to have a website and seem to be an offshoot of a US based association located in Seattle.  Why they signed the letter is unknown! The letter pushes the same agenda:  “twin objectives of moving quickly and strategically to get Canada and Canadians working again in the near-term, while enhancing our national commitment to creating a diversified, low-carbon economy, we make three overarching recommendations for ensuring a resilient recovery.“

Recommendations include: “any relief for the fossil fuel sector and/or fossil-fuel reliant platforms which are facing long-term structural challenges, must have stringent conditions to focus on workers, decarbonization and diversification, and not impede the transition to a clean energy economy.

And

these unprecedented investments pave the way to a more sustainable, net-zero emission economy and avoid measures that lock us into a high-carbon future or risk stranded assets. Periods of high unemployment and low interest rates are precisely the right time to focus on new low-carbon investments and infrastructure, including those required to support and accelerate the transition to clean energy.“

And

“We can use them to scale up investment in energy retrofits, renewable power production, storage and transmission, clean fuel production, electric vehicle and electric vehicle charging infrastructure deployment and measures to further green government.

The associations and the “clean energy program” within SFU signing this letter depend on tax dollars and favourable contracts from federal, provincial and municipal governments and seem to believe the private sector are bottomless pits of tax dollars that will fund their recommendations.

It appears from this vantage point, the numerous eco-charities trying to further influence the Liberal government are worried!  The flow of grants from the Federal ministries and donations from the “foundations” supporting them may slow or dry up. They will then be forced to find a real job in competition with those they denigrate in the oil and gas sector and its supply chain.

Their claimed “charitable” work is a misnomer serving only to harm this once thriving part of the Canadian economy contributing so much to Canada’s employment and tax base.

The time has come to change the definition of a “charity” to eliminate those bloodsuckers!

*Berman’s husband Chris Hatch, is a “reporter” for the National Observer and it receives funds from several of the charities who want to shut down Alberta’s oil and gas sector.

 

Have the Tides Finally Turned?

As we descend deeper into the pandemic caused by Covid-19 one wonders how it’s affecting those eco-charities pushing the “climate emergency and the reputed damage caused by fossil fuels. They claim; we must eliminate carbon emissions by 2050 or the world will face a disaster.

The coronavirus pandemic sweeping the world at present has meant the “climate emergency” eco-charities have been screaming about for the past several decades, has been relegated to the back pages of both the MSM and the virtual internet community.  It is now a “back of mind” issue for almost all Canadians today, as the impact of a real emergency has taken hold.

One wonders if the decades, of this reputed emergency have passed and signifies we have wizened up to what many perceive as an unprecedented “Ponzi scheme?”  Only time will tell!

Tides Canada, a charity with US links

One of the larger and more aggressive charities to have pushed the “climate emergency” agenda in Canada is Tides Canada, an outgrowth of a US charity founded in 1976.  The US charity in 2018 had revenue of $548 million and handed out (granted) 54% or only $296 million of it.  The Canadian arm of Tides is two charities; Tides Canada Foundation and Tides Canada Initiatives Foundation. Tides Canada was founded in the year 2000 according to their website.

A review of their latest CRA filings for the two charities show collective revenues of $35.884 million versus collective revenues of $7.416 million in the prior year.  So, revenues were up by $28.468 million however, $7 million of that was simply a donation from Tides Canada Foundation to Tides Canada Initiatives Foundation. The actual increase in revenue was therefore up $21.458 million or 289.3%.  From examination of the $7 million transferred it appears a lot of it was destined for First Nations grants which raises the question; were those grants connected with the rail blockades aimed at stopping the Coastal Gaslink pipeline?

If one discounts the inter-foundation transfer and looks at where the $28.468 million actually came from you discover, $5.431 million or 18.8% came from Federal, Provincial and Municipal governments,  $7.404 million (25,6%) came from outside Canada, 25.3% or $7.298 million came from other charities and only $3.445 million or 11.9% were actual donations from parties who received charitable receipts.

Reviewing Tide’s donations, the two foundations paid out $12.7 million in grants including those paid to First Nations. The usual cabal of eco-charities (focused on the elimination of the Canadian oil and gas sector) received grants from Tides and included; Environmental Defence, the Sierra Club, the David Suzuki Foundation, Pembina, the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, etc. etc. Total grant payouts represented 43.9% of the $28.868 million of adjusted gross revenues. To this writer, that suggests an inefficient charity with well paid staff.  Along those lines an examination of the CRA compensation report for the top 10 employed by the foundations suggests an average salary of about $118K each.

Eco-warrior concerns

The pandemic seems to be causing angst elsewhere amongst the proponents of the “climate emergency” with one article suggesting that “EU carbon market prices are plummeting as a result of the economic shutdown.” The article noted as of March 25th the price had dropped by 40% and a Polish representative called for scrapping it altogether even though it generated €2.2 billion in auctioning revenues last year for Poland.  If there are low levels of emissions, which is the current situation with business shut down, companies who normally emit them don’t have to buy carbon credits.  A recent article in January 2020 stated “The European carbon market – the world’s largest by volume and value – rose in worth by 30% to €169 billion.”  Many of those European country’s governments will suffer severe revenue shortages as those invisible emissions decline.  As a result, it may cause them to either increase other forms of taxation or reduce spending. As an aside, the emissions reductions may also negatively affect agricultural production and drive food costs higher due to reduced crop yields.

In the US an emerging concern has been amplified by AWEA (American Wind Energy Association) with them saying on March 19ththe global pandemic is putting $43 billion of wind industry investments and payments at risk.”  As explained in the Power Magazine article the biggest concern is not about the people affected by Covid-19 it’s about the delays that will occur in erecting industrial wind turbines.  The delay will result in “expiring tax credits” so AWEA have appealed to Congress.

AWEA in its appeal to Congress said that developers of wind energy projects have been moving forward “based on what appeared the safe assumption that their projects would qualify for the federal production or investment tax credits”.  With those tax credits expiring, delays in completing those projects could push them past deadlines to qualify for the credits.”

Not surprisingly AWEA have got the Democrats on side as the article goes on to state: “Leaders of the House Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition on Thursday said they will push for tax credits for renewable energy in any stimulus legislation. Democratic Reps. Gerry Connolly of Virginia, Doris Matsui of California, and Paul Tonko of New York, co-chairs of the committee, in a statement said, “Our members pushed for these credits in the end-of-year funding package and will continue to fight for them in this round of economic stimulus.”

It is discerning to realize; the eco-warriors, the carbon market traders, the wind and solar renewable energy companies and left leaning politicians continue to gang up on hard working taxpayers and now as the world faces a true emergency they have the gall to ignore the pandemic and instead continue to push their agenda at the expense of the citizens of the free world.

It’s time for the cabal to take off their blinkers and to understand, “the tides have turned”!

This Ponzi scheme must come to an end!

Using less drives up Electricity Prices again, signaling the Province should act

The IESO (Independent Electricity System Operator) just released their Monthly Electricity Report for February 2020 and surprise, surprise, costs went up and ratepayers and taxpayers will pay up!

While Ontario consumption was down by 51,938 MWh (what 75,000 average households would consume in one month) in February 2020, we should also note it had 29 days versus 28 days in 2019. That extra day would add approximately another 400,000 MWh of demand meaning daily consumption decreased by about 15,000 MWh.

So, if we consumed less how come the costs of generation went up?  

As Ontarians know the previous McGuinty/Wynne led governments bungled the electricity sector up so badly that it will take years to sort out.  A combination of things made costs of generation increase this February despite reduced consumption.

Let’s start with wind which, according to my friend Scott Luft, generated 1.555 TWh (TX and DX connected) in February 2020 versus 1.379 TWh in 2019. To cap things off we curtailed almost 96,000 MWh in 2020 versus about 52,000 MWh in 2019.  The combined costs in 2019 of wind generated and curtailed, was approximately $192.4 million (13.9 cents/kwh) and in 2020 it was $234.3 million (15.5 cents/kWh) or $41.9 million higher.  As if to make wind’s unneeded production obvious we exported 1.651 TWh in 2020 and 1.478 TWh in 2019.  One will note in both years wind generated less power than electricity exported—ie; it wasn’t needed!  To make the foregoing (surplus generation) sink-in, the exports in 2019 were sold at an average HOEP (market price) of $27.89/MWh (2.8cents/kWh) and in 2020 we sold them at a lower HOEP price of $14.68/MWh (1.5 cents/kWh).  What this means is our net exports* in 2019 generated $3.3 million more in revenue ($19.9 million) than 2020 ($16.6 million) despite having exported 61.4% less.

The results of the above means Class B ratepayers saw an increase in their February costs up from 11.6 cents/kWh to 12.8 cents/kWh (HOEP plus the Global Adjustment) whereas Class A ratepayers (by picking the “high 5” peak hours annually) saw their costs reduced from 8.22 cent/kWh to 7.46 cents/kWh.

What does the future hold?

With March having signaled the start of a shutdown of much of the economy due to the Covid-19 pandemic one should expect consumption will drop further. The drop in consumption in Ontario will also occur in neighbouring states and provinces meaning exports will drop as will the HOEP market price.  The result will be more wind and solar curtailment, more spilled hydro, more steamed-off nuclear at the time of year when our consumption always falls as warmer weather arrives but we have more sunlight and don’t need our air conditioners or furnaces on to the same extent.  All of that foregone generation and reduced exports will drive up the price of the delivered and consumed electricity. The result will bring further substantial costs for the ratepayers and taxpayers of the province.

While I believe we should be thankful Premier Ford on March 24, 2019 announced electricity rates for the ensuing 45 days would be billed at the off-peak rates for residential (annual average consumption of 9,000 kWh) and small business (annual consumption of 150,000 kWh or less) ratepayers, it is not a big deal! The one-time savings per “average” household will amount to about $50.00 and possibly $2,000 for the largest “small business”!

The question becomes why, under the “State of Emergency” the Ford governement declared, didn’t they act to reduce “first to the grid” rights of wind and solar and stop paying for curtailed power?   At the same time, they should have reduced time-of-use rates more than they did to encourage consumption which may eliminate some of the wasted generation we will undoubtedly experience for the next three months.

The time has come for the contracted suppliers of our electricity generation sector to join the rest of us during this pandemic and if they don’t, the Province should legislate them to show the world: “We are all in this together”!

*Total exports minus imports

The Canadian Institute for Climate Choices should “fact check”

Back in 1989 (thirty-one years ago) Noel Brown, a senior UN environmental official told the Associated Pressentire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.” Brown noted the Maldives would be under water as the oceans would rise by three feet. While the Maldives weren’t mentioned in the recent report from the Canadian Institute for Climate Choices (CICC), “rising sea levels” were; as one of, “the main hazards and conditions on the way to 2050.”

The year 2000 has come and gone but to the best of my knowledge no nations have disappeared due to rising sea levels. The Maldives recently announced they are opening four new airports in the current year.  The lack of them being under water however, hasn’t deterred the numerous “experts” involved with the CICC.  Higher sea level concerns for Atlantic Canada and BC were also included in the report by the Canadian Council of Academies (CCA) in their July 2019 report; the forerunner of the CICC’s report.  As pointed out in an earlier article CCA’s disclaimer under “Conclusions” saw them opting out of everything forecast in their report.  Despite the opt out position taken by the CCA the media only focused on the disastrous message.  Reuters noted the CCA report was a follow up to one from Minister McKenna’s ministry and reported:  “Canada’s unique geographic, environmental, and social identity shapes the hazards that it faces and its exposure to climate-related risks,” Eric M. Meslin, president and CEO of the CCA, said in the press release.”

Returning to the issue of “flooding” the CICC’s report on page 19 touts the Netherlands for their leading-edge ability to control flooding “even though a quarter of the country is below sea level.”  What those “experts” failed to note is “The low-lying Netherlands has been fighting back water for more than 1,000 years, when farmers built the first dykes.“  A search turned up an article confirming “flooding” in the Netherlands is not a recent event caused by the effects C0 2 on the atmosphere or melting artic ice!

The CICC’s report also highlighted severe flooding in Thailand in 2011 as if it was a one-off event.They ignored the probable cause which had nothing to do with “climate change”!  Had they looked back to 1942 they would have discovered a more severe flood and a YouTube video  highlighting the damage before “global warming”, the “climate crisis” or “increased emissions” was even a concept. Again, a simple search on the web by the CICC “experts” would have generated information as to why the 2011 flood occurred. One they may have found was a report by Richard Meehan, a civil engineer and adjunct faculty at Stanford University.  Mr. Meehan’s biography notes he “began his career designing and building irrigation and flood control works in Thailand in the 1960s”.

Mr. Meehan’s report notes: “Though monetary damages in the 2011 flood were unprecedented, the flood itself was not an extreme natural event, hydrological statistics variously suggesting a 30 to 75 year return period for a similar flood.”  The report states the reason for the monetary damages was essentially because “of poorly drained swampy lands on the lower Chao Phraya floodplain, including vast tracts of former swamps and riceland now occupied by very large industrial “estates” (or industrial parks in western terms), each the size of a city and home to hundreds of modern manufacturing plants developed in the 1970s and after.”  The message is clear: don’t build homes or industries in flood prone areas or at some point in the future the damages from a flood will be costly to you and/or your insurer!

The Charting our Course report does sprinkle in some benefits to “global warming” such as: “parts of Canada could benefit from warmer temperatures. Warmer winters could, for example, result in fewer cold-related deaths and illnesses and lower heating costs for households and businesses. Warmer temperatures in spring, summer, and fall could also open new tourism opportunities that previously did not exist.”

The following paragraph in the report however dispels those benefits by stating: “any benefits in a high-emissions scenario are likely temporary and short-lived. Benefits diminish as extreme climate events become more common and intense. Fewer deaths due to extreme cold are offset by more deaths from extreme heat*. Savings in heating bills are offset by increased use of air-conditioners in the summer.

It is interesting the word “likely” is used as it signals the 79 “experts” spending $20 million of our tax dollars are not really convinced those “high-emissions” will actually cause the damages they profess!

Despite the foregoing our senses should tell us the “experts” will ultimately recommend we need much higher carbon taxes to save the world from the likely “climate crisis”.

They might change their mind if they actually did proper research and “fact checked” their conclusions!

*Debunked in:  The Canadian Institute for Climate Choices is “Charting our Course”

A new decade starts with climbing electricity prices in Ontario

IESO just released their January 2020 Monthly Market Report and it brought ratepayers and taxpayers more bad news.  Consumption in the first month of 2020 was down by around 599,000 MWh (what 855,000 average Ontario household’s consume monthly) or 4.7% compared to January 2019.

Consuming less however, cost us more, thanks to the way the McGuinty/Wynne led governments ruled the Province granting renewable energy; “must-take”, contracts at high prices!

Costs were up even though wind generation in January 2020 was down from 2019 by about 216,000 MWh (including curtailed).  Unfortunately consuming so much less had a negative effect on market prices as IESO sold off more generation to our neighbours.  Net exports increased from 1,106,328 MWh to 1,605,552 year over year, up 45.1% and the HOEP average price received for those exports for 2020 was only $14.82 MWh versus $27.82 the prior year.  Wind was not needed either year as in 2019 it was 93.7% of Ontario’s gross exports (1,637,496 MWh) and in 2020 it was 68.7% (1,364,869 MWh).

The drop in the market price (HOEP) of $13/MWh was more than offset by the climb in the Global Adjustment (GA) which increased from $80.85/MWh in 2019 to $102.31/MWh in 2020.  The increase in the GA had a much higher negative effect on Class B ratepayers driving up that portion of costs to 10.24 cents/kWh in 2020 versus 8.08 cents/kWh in 2019.  The foregoing represents a 26.7% increase whereas Class A ratepayers were not as affected seeing their share of the GA climb from 5.32 cents/kWh to 5.66 cents/kWh, an increase of 6.4%.

What the foregoing means is the GA portion of electricity costs to Class B ratepayer, year over year, increased $139.7 million to $911.4 million for just the first month of the new decade despite a reduction in consumption of almost 600,000 MWh. Class A ratepayers saw increased costs of $11.9 million to $196.4 million on a consumption increase of only 3,000 MWh.

Let’s try reverse

Maybe the time has come to drop rates for Class B ratepayers so they would consume more and ironically cause the GA rate to decrease and the all-in price to drop!  Failing that, drop the rate for those small and medium sized Class B businesses so they have competitive electricity prices that would allow them to increase their profits, hire additional staff and in the process consume more electricity!

Time to turn the McGuinty/Wynne Ontario axiom “consuming less, costs more” upside down!

PS: Thanks to Scott Luft of Cold Air for his wind data.

Ontario’s industrial wind turbines many costs

Wind’s visible costs

An article posted February 10, 2020 highlighted how wind generation, on its own, represented a cost of $12.760 billion over the ten years from 2010 to 2019 to Ontario ratepayers. Industrial wind turbines (IWT) had delivered 83.3 TWh and curtailed 10.5 TWh over that time.  The combined cost of the generation and curtailment represented an average delivered cost per kWh of 15.32 cents without factoring in costs of gas plants being at the ready when the wind wasn’t blowing or spilling clean hydro.

Over the same ten years, exports of surplus power to our neighbours cost ratepayers about $12.5 billion dollars. Wind’s habit of generating power in the middle of the night and spring and fall when demand is low drives down the market price; HOEP (Hourly Ontario Energy Price), resulting in export sales at prices well below contracted rates. This results in ratepayers having to pay the difference.

Last weekend (February 22nd and 23rd) was no exception.  The wind was blowing for the two days but Ontario Demand was low averaging 341,800 MWh.  IWT however, were generating power we didn’t need with grid accepted wind at 148,175 MWh and 14,900 MWh curtailed.  The cost of both, was $24 million or 16.2 cents/kWh. IESO was busy exporting surplus power of 141,648 MWh or 96% of grid accepted wind. On top of that we were probably spilling water (and paying for it) at the same time.

The question the foregoing elicits is; how much were we paid for those exports?  Exports sold February 22nd were at the average price of $1.99/MWh and $1.64/MWh on the 23rd so total revenue earned was a miserly $239 thousand versus a cost to ratepayers and taxpayers of the province of over $24 million just for what the IWT delivered.  Our neighbours must love us!

Winds hidden costs

While the foregoing confirms IWT have the habit of being unreliable and intermittent and require backup from gas plants they also have other bad habits.  One example is their killing of birds. The Audubon Society has suggested it is anywhere from 140,000 to 328,000 annually. They also kill bats in large numbers. Bird Studies Canada in 2016 estimated the kill rate in Ontario was 18.5 kills per turbine (over 50,000 annually). Many killed are on the endangered list!  Additionally, tourism areas may also be negatively affected by IWT as noted in a poll in Scotland by the “John Muir Trust (JMT) found that 55% of respondents were “less likely” to venture into areas of the countryside industrialised by giant turbines”.

A recent report from Wind Concerns Ontario (WCO) raises many other negative issues related to IWT!  The report is a synopsis of complaints about IWT submitted by rural residents of Ontario living within close proximity of IWT.  Those complaints were submitted to the MOECC (now the MOECP. The report titled: “Response to Wind Turbine Noise Complaints” analyzed 674 complaints made during 2017.  The shocking issue revealed is: “Only nine of the 674 complaints, or 1.3% of total records, indicated that there was a field response.”  What that suggests is the MOECP’s field offices are either not equipped to deal with complaints or believe the IWT contracted parties will somehow resolve them.  In excess of 5,200 complaints have been logged by WCO since IWT first started to appear in the province and most of them were related to audible and inaudible (infrasound) noise levels. Other complaints have been associated with aquifer (water) contamination, shadow flicker, ice throws, etc.

Approximately 15% of the population will experience negative health effects from the proximity of IWT; a similar percentage to those who suffer from motion sickness.  The effects of audible and infrasound noise will produce; nausea, headaches, anxiety, ringing ears, feeling of exhaustion, etc.  Those individuals will naturally contact their doctors or other health care professionals for treatment adding to the cost of Ontario’s health care system. Those costs are not attributed to the cause, which are the IWT!

Other outcomes where IWT add (hidden) costs is in respect to property values as they are driven lower.  Many studies have confirmed values drop and an Ontario Superior Court ruling suggested the drop was from 22% to 55%.  The drop in values affects the realty tax base in municipalities hosting IWT and could result in lost services due to declining revenue or a substantial increase in realty taxes.

Let’s summarize the visible and invisible costs of IWT:

  1. Increased electricity costs due to the need for duplicate power sources such as gas plants.
  2. Increased surplus power which must be curtailed or sold for pennies on the dollar.
  3. Increased costs due to IWT inability to generate power when actually needed.
  4. Increased surplus power from IWT often means other clean sources must either spill (hydro) or steam off (nuclear) power which adds costs to our electricity bills.
  5. IWT kill birds and bats, many of whom are “species at risk” meaning insects, damaging to crops, are not eaten and farmers must spray their crops with insecticides adding costs to produce.
  6. IWT may affect tourism areas driving away tourists and thereby affect income to those regions.
  7. IWT cause various health problems requiring our health system to respond to individuals affected, thereby adding to health care costs.
  8. IWT cause property values to fall affecting the realty tax base where they operate and the value of the property should the occupants try to sell after the installation of those IWT has occurred.
  9. IWT lifespan is relatively short (20 years at most) compared to traditional sources of electricity generation and when unable to perform, create costs of remediation and disposal of recyclable and non-recyclable materials they consumed when built and erected.

While CanWEA will brag  about the fact that the “fuel” powering IWT is free they ignore all of the other costs.  Is it any wonder, even though electricity from a wind turbine was first created by Sir James Blyth in 1887, it failed to have an influence on the “electrification” of either the UK or anywhere else in the world. Until the UNIPCC forecast their purported concern about “global warming”, IWT were generally found only in very remote locations.  The technology is 133 years old but the “climate emergency” advocates think it’s still relevant!

My forecast is IWT will never, ever, fully replace fossil fuels due to their costs, unreliability, the harm they cause to humans and to birds, bats and turtles! This old technology should be disregarded in the effort to reduce greenhouse gases.

The Canadian Institute for Climate Choices is “Charting our Course”

The first in this series provided a glimpse of how the Canadian Institute for Climate Choices (CICC) came to be, via a $20 million taxpayer grant by the Federal Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change and disclosed how it had issued its first report titled, “Charting our Course”.

If one bothers to Google “Charting our Course” (the name of the first report from the CICC), you get over 24,000 hits and one of them is a Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial report from 2011 which was their Climate Change Action Plan 2011.  Included in it was a big push for the Muskrat Falls project which is in process of being built but is more than double the original $6.2 billion budget (current estimate is $12.7 billion).  As a result, recent media articles have noted the federal government is stepping up to bail Newfoundland out but no firm details have been forthcoming as yet.

One should hope the title choice of the first report by the CICC will not result in the same effect on Canada as the 2011 report had on Newfoundland but don’t count on it.

We shouldn’t try to become the Venezuela of the G7 because of recommendations that will be made by the CICC but from the rhetoric in their version of “Charting our Course” they appear determined to reduce or eliminate our oil and gas output at a high cost.

Needless to say, there is lots of scary stuff in this report but they have missed or distorted facts such as: “Canada will not be immune. Our coastal cities will be swamped by rising seas, threatening property and infrastructure. In the face of more frequent and more severe fire and floods, insurance premiums are poised to rise dramatically, making home insurance unaffordable for many Canadians.” Looks like they are setting us up for rising insurance costs from those rising seas and severe fires.

Hmm, surely its simply co-incidental the CEO of CICC, Kathy Bardswick, is the former President and CEO of The Co-operators Group Ltd., (5th largest Canadian property/casualty insurance company) and Blair Feltmate sits on the CICC “Expert Panel”.  Feltmate is Head, Intact Centre on Climate Adaptation,  University of Waterloo; funded by donations from Intact Financial Corporation, the #1. Canadian property/casualty insurance company as noted in a recent Insurance Business Canada magazine.  As another coincidence, Feltmate was called out for his remarks on CBC radio about distorted flood claims by the CBC’s Ombudsman who noted “the CBC report had “failed to comply with journalistic standards” in assessing and reporting on the industry’s claims.”

The CICC report delves into the economics of the UNIPCC forecasted temperature increase in an obtuse way presumably meant to obscure its intent on shutting down the oil and gas sector. As an example, the report notes: “Much of Canada’s economy—and the prosperity it generates—depends on sectors that export emissions intensive products and commodities, such as oil and gas and cement.”  While oil and gas are major exports (at present) it should be noted 2018 cement exports were an unimpressive $536.6 million. Total exports in 2018 were $521.5 billion so cement was 1/10th of 1% of total exports.  To put the foregoing in context, Canada’s coal exports in 2018 were $7.5 billion (97% metallurgical) and automobiles and parts exported were over $60 billion.  One would think all those “experts” signed on to the CICC could locate a better “emission” related addition to oil and gas.

As if to make the foregoing argument ironic, the report claims the cleantech sector would benefit stating; “Meanwhile, conventional sectors, such as mining and forestry, could benefit from an unprecedented increase in global demand for raw materials.”  This would suggest they believe the mining and forestry sector are “cleantech” and somehow “emissions free”.  A strange claim!

Another part of the report says: “Fewer deaths due to extreme cold are offset by more deaths from extreme heat.” A little research on the part of the authors and peer reviewers of this claim would have found a fact based study that unequivocally states the opposite:  The following chart from the Lancet Study from 2015 shows the CICC claim to be completely false!

Figure thumbnail gr2

Fraction of all-cause mortality attributable to moderate and extreme hot and cold temperature by country

The foregoing study, completed by 22 individuals with doctorates stated: “We analysed 74,225,200 deaths in various periods between 1985 and 2012.“ As the chart notes the analysis covered 13 countries and the results clearly show moderate and extreme cold are responsible for 15 to 20 times more deaths than moderate or extreme heat.

Why do the “experts” associated with the CICC distort and ignore facts unless their sole purpose is to convince us we need a higher “carbon tax”!

This “unparalleled collaboration of experts from across the country” seem unwilling to identify facts but are happy “Charting our Course” to economic disaster while utilizing our tax dollars!

Will the eventual outcome result in Canada becoming Canazuela?

NB:  Stay tuned for more on the CICC’s report.

 

Pigs can fly and “Renewable energy should be the cornerstone of Canada’s net zero strategy”

A recent article in the Globe and Mail, as noted above, makes claims that cannot be supported by facts. The article tries to suggest Canada can be saved from the cataclysmic clutches of climate change but it is obvious the reporter (term used lightly) simply took what he was told and accepted it—no questions asked!

The article uses claims made by the spokespeople of the four parties who, in 2015, founded the Canadian Council on Renewable Energy (CanCORE).  Those four parties are the trade associations for the wind, solar, tides and hydro electricity generating companies.

Some of the information was taken from what appears to be a singular report on the CanCORE website from 2016 and embellished by the spokespeople, eg: “The flexible and dependable foundation provided by Canada’s existing waterpower infrastructure, coupled with the rapidly plunging costs of our wind and solar resources, makes renewable energy the least costly option for new clean and reliable power.”

The article says 60% of Canada’s electricity generation comes from hydro, 399.1 TWh  (terawatt hours) and 68% from all four.  So, the 8% difference came from wind, solar and tides.  If one reviews the latest information available from Natural Resources Canada in 2017, total electricity generation was 652 TWh .  Wind in 2017, is credited with the provision of 28.7 TWh, solar 3.3 TWh and tides with 0.2 TWh.

Further on in the article it says: “Waterpower is so abundant in Canada that increasing capacity at existing waterpower sites by less than 2 per cent would produce enough electricity to more than power Canada’s entire light-duty vehicle fleet.”  There is nothing in the article or the CanCORE report indicating what is meant by the “entire light-duty vehicle fleet” or it’s required power.  Putting that aside, a 2% increase in hydro generation would represent 8 TWh.

Looking at Ontario (only), OPG’s 2017 financial report noted hydro spillage was 5.9 TWh due to SBG (surplus baseload generation). The spillage was likely caused by wind generation added to the grid when it wasn’t needed as it is granted “first-to-the-grid” rights. To top things off, 2017 also saw 3.3 TWh of curtailed wind and ratepayers were required to pay for it along with the spilled hydro.  As recently reported Ontario has reduced emissions in the electricity sector by 18 MT (megatonnes) from 2010 to 2019 at a cost to it’s ratepayers and taxpayers of $23.8 billion.

To make matters worse for Ontario ratepayers, surplus power generation is sold in the export market at the Hourly Ontario Energy Price which is well below the contracted costs. Over the 10 years referenced above an average of 18.2 TWh annually were sold to Ontario’s neighbours. The cost to Ontario ratepayers was $12.5 billion.

While the current government of Canada has embraced the goal of achieving “net-zero” greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050, the obsession, will devastate the Canadian economy no matter what claims are made by the associations of wind, solar and tides generators!

The individuals who provided their dubious non-factual rhetoric to the author of the Globe & Mail article did so for the sole purpose of furthering the financial well-being of members of their associations.  They ignore the further damage to Canada their recommendations would cause. They should not be treated by journalists as they are and must be questioned about their claims and those writing the articles should do proper research.