Green Energy Policies Driving Up Carbon Emissions

Ontario green policies actually driving up carbon dioxide

JACK MACLAREN, SPECIAL TO THE TORONTO SUN

FIRST POSTED: THURSDAY, DECEMBER 01, 2016 05:14 PM EST | UPDATED: THURSDAY, DECEMBER 01, 2016 05:33 PM EST

Wind turbines
Wind turbines near Strathroy, Ont., west of London. (Mike Hensen/Postmedia 

The Ontario Liberals’ Green Energy Act is meant to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by generating power from wind turbines and solar panels.

We already know this has turned into a wasteful boondoggle — just look at your hydro bill. But there’s another problem with the Green Energy Act, which I was shocked to learn about.

A 2015 report from the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers (OSPE) makes the alarming case that Ontario green energy policy is actually driving up carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

Wind and solar energy seem like good, clean sources of energy. But wind power is intermittent, and about 40% of the generated power arrives when load demand is low. Solar energy is also intermittent and capacity is very low. All this means that wind and solar power are expensive and unreliable.

Basically, windmills and solar panels only produce power when the wind blows and the sun shines. They need backup in the form of other power sources to provide constant electricity when you need it. Ontario has gone with natural gas backup because that is the cheapest source of energy currently available. Other options were available, including nuclear and hydro plants, but natural gas was chosen.

This is unfortunate because nuclear and hydro do not emit CO2, but natural gas does. So as we dial down nuclear and hydro, we are doubling up on CO2 emissions from natural gas.

According to OSPE, Ontario currently produces electricity at less than 40 grams of CO2 per kWh. But wind and solar with natural gas backup release about 200 grams of CO2 per kWh.

Now, the trouble of building all the windmills and solar panels wouldn’t be so bad if it were actually worthwhile. But it isn’t. We do not have a cheap and effective way of storing the energy generated by wind and solar power. Simply put, storage is too expensive at the moment.

Adding solar and wind power to the Ontario grid just doesn’t make environmental or economic sense. Continuing to add wind and solar can only be justified on ideological grounds.

Admittedly, the Wynne government announced a halt to further wind and solar contracts. I’m not sure how long they’ll put their ideology on hold, but this is a short-term solution anyway.

We need to use more of our cheaper hydroelectric and nuclear power. And we need to stop exporting power abroad at low prices.

We all want to do the right thing for our environment and we all want clean air to breathe and water to drink. I sincerely believe it is important we strive for a cleaner and safer future.

But no one likes being misled or lied to. The Ontario Liberal government’s Green Energy Act is an environmental and economic disaster. As both a farmer and a civil engineer, I know about protecting the environment as well as long-term sustainability. Farming teaches you to understand the risks and benefits of co-operating with Mother Nature. Similarly, engineers are required to build things: We build things to last, and we do so in the public interest.

So I think most Ontarians would agree with me when I say that we need to have affordable, clean, reliable, and sustainable sources of energy which do not increase CO2.

Unfortunately the Green Energy Act just hasn’t got it right.

— MacLaren is the MPP for Carleton-Mississippi Mills 

Renewables may Lose “First to the Grid Privileges in EU”.

Renewables could lose European power grid priority, documents reveal

Industry concern after confidential impact assessment models scenarios for paring back the ‘priority dispatch’ system for clean energy

The sun reflects off a solar collector assembly at the Andasol solar power station, southern Spain. Retroactive changes to funding rules have caused disputes and cutbacks in several countries, notably Spain.
The sun reflects off a solar collector assembly at the Andasol solar power station, southern Spain. Retroactive changes to funding rules have caused disputes and cutbacks in several countries, notably Spain. Photograph: Marcelo Del Pozo/Reuters

Windfarms and solar power could soon lose the privilege of getting priority over other energy sources on European electricity grids, leaked documents show.

Paring back the “priority dispatch” system could increase carbon emissions by up to 10%, according to a confidential EU impact assessment seen by the Guardian. But the document goes on to model four scenarios for doing just that, in a bid to make Europe’s energy generators more flexible and cost-competitive.

Some industry sources have told the Guardian they are alarmed and think it highly likely that priority dispatch for clean energy will be scrapped from the EU’s renewable energy directive, which is currently being redrafted for the post-2020 period.

Oliver Joy, a spokesman for the WindEurope trade association, said: “Removing priority dispatch for renewable energies would be detrimental to the wind sector, which would face more curtailment across the continent. It also seems to be at odds with Europe’s plans to decarbonise and increase renewables penetration over the next decade.”

“Investors took priority dispatch into account when projecting revenues in the original investment decisions, and it could have a bearing on existing projects if they are not protected from the change.”

The issue of retroactive changes to funding rules for renewables in Europe has been a cause for disputes and cutbacks in the wind and solar sectors of several countries, notably Spain.

Senior industry sources say they will push for financial compensation and access to balancing markets to help prevent a significant industry contraction, if priority dispatch is ended.

“We have had enough instability and retroactivity in Europe and going forward, the difference between existing and future assets should be well distinguished,” said one industry source.

“I would be extremely worried if they just removed priority of dispatch and did not touch other key issues around market design. It would mean that the commission was taking measures against the same renewable industries that they defend in public.”

Fossil fuel power providers argue that renewables have the lowest operating costs and so would anyway receive priority access to the grid network.

They also say that taking the clean energy sector out of priority dispatch would prevent “negative prices” – where more energy is produced than can be sold – and eliminate anti-competitive subsidies.

The EU’s assessment views the abolishing of priority dispatch as a step towards the creation of a “level playing field” for energy generators.

But without such a system, renewable sources may be the most likely to be taken offline because of the relative ease of switching off a wind turbine compared to a coal or nuclear plant.

The energy source with the lowest marginal cost – almost always renewables – is usually the first in line to be shut down by power grid operators.

As things are, a Europe-wide trend towards ending financial support has constrained the forward march of renewables on the continent, and siphoned off investment to elsewhere in the world.

“Everyone is investing in renewables outside Europe right now,” said one industry source. “If you want to bring investors back you have to send very relevant signals.

Removing wind and solar power from priority dispatch may be intended to help reform the capacity market system, which currently pays gas generators to remain idle. Ironically though, it could lead renewable generators to demand an extension of the same mechanism to their own sector.

“If priority dispatch is removed, then renewables must be given a fall-back option of access and remuneration in the balancing markets to help stabilize the system, or clear levels of compensation in the event that curtailment is necessary,” Joy said.

Priority dispatch is supposed to be mandatory under current EU rules, although the UK, Sweden and the Netherlands are among countries that do not comply.

The study says that “the biggest impacts on generation [from ending priority dispatch] would be observed in Denmark, Great Britain and Finland, where biomass holds a large share of generation capacity”.

But this would be felt more in terms of bio-energy’s “expensive” production costs than its carbon emissions reduction potential, which is disputed inside and outside the commission.

“The removal of priority dispatch for biomass would indeed, in the first instance, imply an increase in GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions,” the paper says.

The four scenarios for scaling back priority dispatch involve an increase in CO2 emissions of 45m-60m tonnes.

Climate Alarmists Try to Go For the Heart….Cause our Brains Just Ain’t Buying It! LOL!

Gallery of Morose Moonbats Sulking About Collapse of Global Warming Hoax

Ever more desperate to get someone other than socialist journalists and bureaucrats to take the collapsing global warming hoax seriously, academics who make their living on it have resorted to releasing photographs of themselves wearing doleful expressions as they contemplate the hurt allegedly being inflicted on the earth by the highly beneficial CO2 that is produced by literally all human activity. The following is not a joke:

Photographer Nick Bowers, Art Director Celine Faledam and Copy Writer Rachel Guest have teamed up to bring attention to the issue of climate change in a completely novel and frankly terrifying way with their portrait/interview projectScared Scientists. …

Bowers takes moody, dark, black-and-white portraits of the scientists and those portraits are then put up on the Scares [sic] Scientists websitealongside a short interview with each of these climate experts — an interview headlined by their credentials and their greatest climate change fear.

Prominent among the woeful warmists on display is Tim Flannery:

tim-flannery_sad-moonbat

Readers may remember Flannery as the malevolent lunatic who called for fighting the nonexistent global warming menace by filling the sky with sulfur. Linking global warming to adecline in circumcision may be his most noteworthy scientific achievement.

Flannery was rattled by ClimateGate, which caused the wheels to start coming off the global warming hoax by proving that “scientific” research on the topic consists largely not just of extremely bad, politicized science, but of deliberate lies.

The triumph in his home country of Tony Abbott, who rose to Prime Minister largely on his promise to undo the damage to the economy inflicted by global warming zealots, must have hit Flannery even harder. No wonder he looks so blue.

Global warming propagandists who can foresee the end of the line for the government grant gravy train don’t just express their sadness with forlorn expressions. They also write sad notes:

Australian National University student Joe Duggan contacted scientists and asked them to write the letters about how they felt about climate change.

“What follows are the words of real scientists. Researchers that understand climate change,” states the Is This How You Feel website, where Duggan is publishing the letters.

This one from “climate change ecologist” Anthony Richardson of the University of Queensland tugs on the heartstrings when you consider the angst he must be enduring:

anthony-richardson-climate-moonbat-letter

Not to mention that he is fretful about people figuring out that climate change ecologists are about as useful as ice cubes in the arctic, and distraught about the possibility of having to find constructive employment.

Climate Alarmists Try to Go For the Heart….Cause our Brains Just Ain’t Buying It! LOL!

Gallery of Morose Moonbats Sulking About Collapse of Global Warming Hoax

Ever more desperate to get someone other than socialist journalists and bureaucrats to take the collapsing global warming hoax seriously, academics who make their living on it have resorted to releasing photographs of themselves wearing doleful expressions as they contemplate the hurt allegedly being inflicted on the earth by the highly beneficial CO2 that is produced by literally all human activity. The following is not a joke:

Photographer Nick Bowers, Art Director Celine Faledam and Copy Writer Rachel Guest have teamed up to bring attention to the issue of climate change in a completely novel and frankly terrifying way with their portrait/interview projectScared Scientists. …

Bowers takes moody, dark, black-and-white portraits of the scientists and those portraits are then put up on the Scares [sic] Scientists websitealongside a short interview with each of these climate experts — an interview headlined by their credentials and their greatest climate change fear.

Prominent among the woeful warmists on display is Tim Flannery:

tim-flannery_sad-moonbat

Readers may remember Flannery as the malevolent lunatic who called for fighting the nonexistent global warming menace by filling the sky with sulfur. Linking global warming to adecline in circumcision may be his most noteworthy scientific achievement.

Flannery was rattled by ClimateGate, which caused the wheels to start coming off the global warming hoax by proving that “scientific” research on the topic consists largely not just of extremely bad, politicized science, but of deliberate lies.

The triumph in his home country of Tony Abbott, who rose to Prime Minister largely on his promise to undo the damage to the economy inflicted by global warming zealots, must have hit Flannery even harder. No wonder he looks so blue.

Global warming propagandists who can foresee the end of the line for the government grant gravy train don’t just express their sadness with forlorn expressions. They also write sad notes:

Australian National University student Joe Duggan contacted scientists and asked them to write the letters about how they felt about climate change.

“What follows are the words of real scientists. Researchers that understand climate change,” states the Is This How You Feel website, where Duggan is publishing the letters.

This one from “climate change ecologist” Anthony Richardson of the University of Queensland tugs on the heartstrings when you consider the angst he must be enduring:

anthony-richardson-climate-moonbat-letter

Not to mention that he is fretful about people figuring out that climate change ecologists are about as useful as ice cubes in the arctic, and distraught about the possibility of having to find constructive employment.