unaffordable renewables

The Faux-Green Renewables Scam is Dripping with Outrageous subsidies!!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Big Green’s untold billions

Mainstream media don’t know Big Green has deeper pockets than Big Oil

  • Big Green follow the money CFACT Org

May 14, 2014 by ,

The “Kill Keystone XL” crowd isn’t little David up against a Big Oil Goliath. As usual, conventional wisdom isn’t wisdom when the mainstream media ask all the wrong questions with commensurate answers.

Behemoth Big Green outstrips Big Oil in expendable revenue by orders of magnitude — if you know how to follow the money.

The mainstream media don’t know how. Like most liberals, their staffs are afflicted with what 20th century futurist Herman Kahn called “Educated Incapacity” — the learned inability to understand or even perceive a problem, much less a solution.

They’ve been taught to be blind, unable to see Big Green as having more disposable money than Big Oil, so they don’t look into it.

They would never discover that the American Petroleum Institute’s IRS Form 990 for the most recent year showed $237.9 million in assets while the Natural Resources Defense Council reported $241.8 million.

Nor would they discover who started the anti-Keystone campaign in the first place. It was the $789 million Rockefeller Brothers Fund (established in 1940). The fund’s program is elaborated in a 2008 PowerPoint presentation called “The Tar Sands Campaign” by program officer Michael Northrop, who set up coordination and funding for a dozen environmental and anti-corporate attack groups to use the strategy, “raise the negatives, raise the costs, slow down and stop infrastructure, and stop pipelines.” Tom Steyer’s $100 million solo act is naive underclass nouveau cheap by comparison.

Mainstream reporters appear not to be aware of the component parts that comprise Big Green: environmentalist membership groups, nonprofit law firms, nonprofit real estate trusts (The Nature Conservancy alone holds $6 billion in assets), wealthy foundations giving prescriptive grants, and agenda-making cartels such as the 200-plus member Environmental Grantmakers Association. They each play a major socio-political role.

Invisible fact: the environmental movement is a mature, highly developed network with top leadership stewarding a vast institutional memory, a fiercely loyal cadre of competent social and political operatives, and millions of high-demographic members ready to be mobilized as needed.

That membership base is a built-in free public relations machine responsive to the push of a social media button sending politically powerful “educational” alerts that don’t show up on election reports.

Big Oil doesn’t have that, but has to pay for lobbyists, public relations firms and support groups that do show up on reports.

You don’t need expert skills to connect the dots linking Keystone XL to Alberta’s oil sands to climate change to Big Green.

On the other hand, you do need detailed knowledge to parse Big Green into its constituent parts. I spoke with CFACT senior policy analyst Paul Driessen, who said, “U.S. environmental activist groups are a $13-billion-a-year industry — and they’re all about PR and mobilizing the troops.

“Their climate change campaign alone has well over a billion dollars annually, and high-profile battles against drilling, fracking, oil sands and Keystone get a big chunk of that, as demonstrated by the Rockefeller assault.”

Driessen then identified the most-neglected of all money sources in Big Green: “The liberal foundations that give targeted grants to Big Green operations have well over $100 billion at their disposal.”

That figure is confirmed in the Foundation Center database of the Top 100 Foundations. But how much actually gets to environmental groups? The Giving USA Institute’s annual reports show $80,427,810,000 (more than $80 billion) in giving to environmental recipients from 2000 to 2012.

I checked the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and found $147.3 million in assets while environmental donor Gordon E. and Betty I. Moore Foundation posted $5.2 billion.

Driessen pointed out another unperceived sector of Big Green: government donors. “Under President Obama, government agencies have poured tens of millions into nonprofit groups for anti-hydrocarbon campaigns.”

Weather Channel co-founder John Coleman adds, “The federal government is currently spending $2.6 billion [per year] on climate change research (and only those who support the “carbon dioxide is a pollutant/major greenhouse gas’ receive funding).”

This web of ideological soul-mates, like all movements, has its share of turf wars and dissension in the ranks, but, as disclosed on conference tapes I obtained, it shares a visceral hatred of capitalism, a worshipful trust that nature knows best, and a callous belief that humans are not natural but the nemesis of all that is natural.

Lawyer Christopher Manes wrote “Green Rage: Radical Environmentalism and the Unmaking of Civilization.” Manes now practices tax litigation from his law office in Palm Springs, Calif., which he has not yet unmade.

The legal branch of Big Green is varied. Earthjustice, (formerly Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund) raked in $133.8 million in the past five years – comparable to many similar law organizations. Highly litigative attack groups receiving federal settlements are numerous and thriving, such as the Center for Biological Diversity ($29.2 million in the past five years).

It’s not unusual for heirs of big money to dream of unmaking the source of their wealth: Laura Rockefeller Chasin of the Rockefeller Family Fund once said, “It’s very hard to get rid of the money is a way that does more good than harm. One of the ways is to subsidize people who are trying to change the system and get rid of people like us.”

The money reported to the Federal Election Commission is barely the beginning of what’s really happening. It doesn’t show you Big Green’s mobilized boots on the ground, the zooming Twitter tweets, the fevered protesters, the Facebook fanatics or the celebrities preaching carbon modesty from the lounges of their private jets.

When self-righteous victims of Educated Incapacity insist that Big Oil outspends the poor little greenies, keep in mind the mountains of IRS Form 990s filed by thousands of groups, land trusts, lawyer outfits, foundations, and agenda-makers, just waiting for America to wake up and smell Big Green’s untold hundreds of billions.

____________

This article originally appeared in The Washington Examiner

– See more at: http://www.cfact.org/2014/05/14/big-greens-untold-billions/#sthash.u6BIT3H8.dpuf

Be Leary of Doing Business with a Wind Weasel!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

014
Bureau County leery of costs to take down old wind turbines

Katlyn Rumbold
Princeton Bureau Chief

PRINCETON — Pittsburgh-based EverPower Wind Co. is now the formal owner of Big Sky Wind Farm, which is located in northern Bureau County, the Bureau County Board heard during Monday night’s meeting.

But with that came more concerns on eventual decommissioning of the turbines and what that means for the county’s landowners and taxpayers.

At last month’s meeting, the board was looking into a letter of credit for the decommissioning plan as opposed to the existing cash-on-hand arrangements that already have been in place. Board members previously indicated they didn’t have enough information to move forward with a letter of credit, but last night Bureau County state’s attorney Pat Herrmann said the board has three options: They can either move forward with the letter of credit of just over $1.9 million, keep funds as they are currently or accept the cash that is in the cash escrow account.

“I have concerns about the letter of credit,” said Ed Gerdes, Princeton resident. “Two different issues is the amount and how that’s guaranteed.”

Based on a similar project, Gerdes said the total cost to take down 87 wind turbines came out just over $19.4 million which is approximately $224,000 per turbine.

“That’s one of the big problems we have is there’s only $1.9 million,” Gerdes said of what he says could be a $10 million-$12 million project. “That’s maybe going to take down nine turbines. Who’s going to pay for the rest?

“I don’t think the taxpayers should have to pay for taking those down. The other problem we have is that when landowners signed these leases with these companies they were promised that if this doesn’t work they’ll come back and take the turbine down. They also promised that if they weren’t here, the county would have money set aside to take them down. The county isn’t going to have money so I think all these landowners might end up with a bill for $150-$200,000 to dispose of these turbines.”

Gerdes also expressed concerned about the tax levy expiration in 2016 and what might happen if a new bank took over the letter of credit. However, Michael Speerschneider, who has been representing EverPower Wind Co., said the $1.9 million is an increase to where it was at two years ago and that number is expected to increase over the next 20 years to approximately $3 million.

The board approved a motion to go into negotiations to accept the letter of credit.

*In other news, The board approved a proposal from Butler Insurance of medical coverage and approved the Lawyer’s Professional liability insurance premium and renewal from Dimond Bros. for $3,578 for the public defender.

Tim Hudak Promises to End Wind Scam…..other parties will continue to rob us!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

D’Amato: To understand Ontario’s election,

take a careful look at your hydro bill

By  Luisa D’Amato
SEE MOREarticles from this author

It’s so easy to get sidetracked by the distractions.

Ontario Liberal Leader Kathleen Wynne goes for a morning jog in Kitchener’s Victoria Park, leaving a reporter out of breath as he tries to follow. Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak gets kicked off a Toronto subway when he tries to make an announcement, because his team didn’t get permission.

These events grab the headlines because they’re anecdotes, easy to tell. But they have nothing to do with what a political party will or won’t do for you if it wins.

On the other hand, if you look at your hydro bill, and what each party will do about it, it tells you something significant about each of them.

The cost of electricity is a key issue. Ontario’s electricity rates have soared and are now among the highest in North America.

In part, this is because of the Liberal government’s “green energy” plan that offers subsidies to those that put up wind turbines and solar panels, then sell the power back to the power grid.

Expensive electricity is stressful. There’s evidence that it’s forcing manufacturing employers out of the province. Last week, Don Walker, CEO of auto parts giant Magna International, said: “I doubt we’ll add any more plants in Ontario” in part because of electricity costs.

Full platforms have not been released by the parties yet. But here’s what each has said so far about your hydro bill:

Greens: Conservation is their focus. They’d require utilities to provide grants and “affordable” loans for people to make their homes more energy efficient.

Liberals: Their latest announcement was billed as good news for consumers, but when you check the details, it isn’t.

Their plan is to relieve consumers of the debt retirement charge from the old Ontario Hydro (nearly $8 on my last household bill of $177 over two months).

That sounds helpful, until you realize that the “clean energy benefit,” which gives customers a 10-per-cent break on the bill ($19.35 in my case), is also being eliminated. And there’ll be a 90-cents-a-month hike for most homes to subsidize low-income customers. Total impact: I’m paying $13.15 more every two months, and that’s before the cost of electricity goes up again.

New Democrats: Piecemeal policy. There’s very little so far. Leader Andrea Horwath announced Monday that she will “take the HST” off hydro bills “to put money back into the budgets of middle-class families.” Further down in the press release, it’s revealed that actually it’s only the “provincial portion” of the HST that would come off. On my bill, that’s $13.70 in savings over a two-month period.

Conservatives: Shock therapy: The plan is to bring electricity prices down, and therefore keep industrial employers here, by ending those Liberal subsidies for wind and solar costs, cutting the hydro bureaucracy (Hudak says there are 11,000 people making more than $100,000 a year) and buying cheap energy from the United States and Quebec.

This election boils down to a choice: Do you like things the way they are, or do you want big changes?

The Conservatives offer radical change. The Liberals offer their record over the past 11 years. The New Democrats offer tweaks on the Liberal program. And those basic distinctions are true of a lot more issues than just your electricity bill.

ldamato@therecord.com

Wind Power is Not What they Said it Would Be!! It’s useless!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Wind Power: Buying a Dog, but getting Sold a Pup

May 14, 2014 by 

border-collie-16

How many times have we believed the salesman’s pitch – got home and unwrapped our purchase – only to be disappointed when we discover that we’d spent our hard earned cash on a complete lemon?

Ending up with a frisky and inexperienced pup, when we’ve shelled out for a well-trained dog is always disappointing. Wind power brings with it precisely the same kind of disappointment.

You see, its proponents market it as a perfect substitute for on-demand power generation sources – like nuclear, coal, gas and hydro. However, wind power can’t be called a “substitute” for, well, anything.

The myth that wind farms provide (or are capable of providing) meaningful and consistent power output on-demand – provided there are hundreds of giant fans connected to the same grid and spread over large distances – was totally busted in yesterday’s post.

Now it seems that Scotland’s First Minister, Alex Salmond – trading on precisely the same myth – is dressing up the Scottish wind power “Pup” so he can peddle it as the kind of Collie any Highland herder would be proud to call their own.

Here’s the Scottish Energy News with the latest on Salmond’s wind power hard-sell.

The Difficulty of Making Money from Wind Generated Electricity
Scottish Energy News
Jack W. Ponton (FREng, FIChemE)
12 May 2014

Although he has not recently described Scotland as “the Saudi Arabia of renewables”, First Minister Alex Salmond and other supporters of his wind energy policies are still claiming that it is possible for us to make money selling renewable energy to the rest of the world, as Saudi Arabia does with its oil.

Any comparison with Saudi Arabia is self-evidently silly. That country produces about 10 million barrels of oil per day. In energy terms this means that their energy output is at a rate equivalent to about 25kw per head of population. Meeting the SNP’s target of “100% electricity from renewables” would require an installed wind capacity of about 13.5GW, effectively 3.7GW because of wind variability, equivalent to about 0.7kW per head.

More significant than scale, however, is the fundamental difference between oil or gas and wind generated electricity. To sell something profitably, it must be possible to deliver it to customers when and where they require it.

Once an oil or gas well has started operating, production can be increased or decreased to meet changes in demand. Oil and gas are conveniently transported across continents in pipelines, and supertankers can carry up to half a million tonnes. Oil can be easily stored until required – the US keeps a strategic petroleum reserve of about 700 million barrels.

In contrast, wind generated electricity is only available when the wind is blowing.

It is expensive to transport; the controversial Beauly-Denny link will have a small fraction of the energy carrying capacity of a supertanker – at, incidentally, about four times the price. Electricity is also extremely difficult and expensive to store. The only practical means of storing large quantities is by pumped storage, for which there are four sites in the UK with a combined capacity equivalent to just 18,000 barrels of oil.

It is crucial to understand just who actually makes money from oil and how do they do it. There are two ways in which a country can make money from such a natural resource.

In principle, the most profitable should be to set up its own oil company. This is what Norway has done, giving it a GDP which is the highest for any “real economy” country in Europe.

Alternatively, governments can sell licences to private companies and charge them taxes or royalties on what they extract. This is what the UK has done with North Sea oil.

In terms of electricity, the UK has sold off its state-owned generators and so would have to adopt the licence and tax model to profit from renewable electricity. So has it auctioned licences to build wind farms and charged the companies royalties?

Quite on the contrary – the consumer is paying subsidies to renewable energy operators through Feed in Tariffs and Renewable Obligation Certificates!

It is not at all clear that a country, as opposed to company, can make money out of electricity unless the state owns the electricity company. While a number of countries are successful exporters of electricity, they all have particular characteristics which do not apply to Scotland.

For a start, their electricity is cheap to produce; it is usually hydro, but in the case of France it is nuclear. French nuclear reactors have been much cheaper than those built in the UK and France has the cheapest electricity in Europe.

UK renewable electricity is guaranteed a price at least twice the current wholesale market rate. If overseas customers do not choose to pay this premium, and it’s hard to see why the would, then our electricity exports would in effect have to be subsidised by the taxpayer.

Then their generation tends to be a controllable resource. Hydro is the most flexible form of generation and so can be sold when export demand is high attracting a high price. French nuclear is less flexible, but unlike wind it is controllable. France also has substantial hydro capacity.

Importantly, they also tend to have a choice of customers. Norway sells its cheaply produced hydro to Sweden, Denmark and Germany, France to Germany, Benelux and the UK.

None of these conditions apply to Scotland. Our wind generated surplus will be expensive, uncontrollable, saleable only to England and any profits will go to private companies – mostly owned by German and Spanish shareholders or the French government.

Denmark, with more than 20% of its capacity in wind, has the most expensive electricity in Europe. At times of surplus wind it is sold at the bottom of the market to Germany (whose own wind generation will be peaking as well) Sweden (which has plenty nuclear and hydro capacity of its own) and to Norway. On the other hand when the wind is not blowing and Denmark’s demand is high, they must buy in electricity at a premium price.

Norway is a major electricity exporter, having several times as much hydro capacity as it actually needs. It uses this for energy intensive industries such as aluminium smelting. Norway is happy to obtain nearly free extra power at the Danish taxpayer and consumer’s expense. This also makes a nonsense of the idea that we might build a link to Norway to sell them electricity at a profit.

The other great hope of renewable energy enthusiasts is that Scotland can build an industry to support wind power generation and sell expertise to the rest of the world. Alas, we are about 20 years too late to cash in on onshore wind power. That market is dominated by manufacturers in Germany, Denmark and the US.

The billions which Scotland has “invested” in wind turbines have mostly gone to these countries. What is spent locally is the relatively small proportion of the total cost in low-tech engineering and construction.

But what about the forthcoming boom in “marine energy” where we can hope to be leaders in the field?

Marine energy, in the form of offshore wind turbines, is now almost as well established a technology as onshore wind. And it is dominated by the same countries and companies as onshore. All the existing offshore wind is in a relatively benign environment like the southern North Sea. There is no particular difficulty in putting turbines in such locations (though there appear to be problems in maintenance) and there are plenty of suitable sites available, such as the Baltic and the Mediterranean.

It would be quite another matter to put turbines in a more demanding environment such as exists off most coasts of Scotland. In fact, no one has yet done this. Indeed, two companies, SSE and Olsen have recently pulled out of major offshore projects.

But even if we do manage to build a major wind power facility in deep and stormy waters, who else is going to want to do the same when there are less difficult sites?

The SNP’s regular boast that Scotland has so much of Europe’s marine energy potential is double edged – it also means that Scotland is itself most of the market for the relevant technology, and in the case of the most challenging and expensive, perhaps the only market.

Professor Jack Ponton is a member of the Scientific Alliance Scotland.
Scottish Energy News

Electricity is one commodity where its consumption is instantaneous, such that any serious contender looking to supply it simply has to guarantee households and businesses that it will be available “on-demand”. And that’s something that wind power cannot and will never be able to do.

To peddle it as anything but a “power-generation-pup” is to simply take power punters for a ride.

pup

 

Companies Leaving Ontario Because of Ever-rising Costs for Doing Business!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment
Magna says no new plants for Canada, cites Ontario energy costs
Ontario energy, pension costs a concern, the company says.

Magna CEO Don Walker speaks at the company’s annual general meeting in Toronto on Thursday.
CHRIS YOUNG/THE CANADIAN PRESS

Magna CEO Don Walker speaks at the company’s annual general meeting in Toronto on Thursday.

By: Dana Flavelle Economy, Business Reporter, Published on Thu May 08 2014
Magna International Inc. says it has no plans to open any new plants in Canada despite a lower dollar, chief executive officer Don Walker says.
The nearly 10 per cent decline in the Canadian dollar relative to the U.S. greenback has helped make the Aurora-based global auto parts supplier more cost competitive, Walker told the company’s annual general meeting Thursday.
But the company said it’s concerned about Ontario’s industrial electricity rates and proposed pension plan, along with the future of its auto assembly plants.
“I’m worried about electricity prices in Ontario, where all of our plants are located,” Walker told a press conference after the meeting at The Westin Prince Hotel in Toronto. Magna operates 46 auto plants in Canada, all in Ontario where the major auto makers’ assembly plants are located.
Walker said he hoped whoever wins the Ontario election on June 12 takes action to reduce energy costs for the corporate sector.
Magna is also concerned about the proposed new Ontario Pension Plan, a key plank in Liberal Premier Kathleen Wynne’s election platform. The plan aims to close a shortfall in Canadians’ retirement savings.
But Magna said the plan would add $1,900 a year per employee to the company’s costs.
“That’s a pretty significant cost to us,” chief financial officer Vincent Galifi said, noting the company has 19,000 employees in the province.
Walker also said the Canadian and Ontario governments need to invest in auto assembly plants if they want to create and keep auto industry jobs.
“If the assembly plants all go it’ll be a lot more difficult (for Magna) to remain in Canada,” he said.
Earlier this year, Chrysler backed out of talks with the federal and Ontario governments about incentives to expand its plants in Windsor and Brampton, saying the plan had become a political football.
Ontario Tory leader Tim Hudak had slammed the governing Liberals for allowing Chrysler to hold provincial taxpayers “ransom,” calling the incentives “corporate welfare.”
Walker, who is also head of the industry-wide Canadian Automotive Partnership Council, said governments need to realize investments in auto plants pay big dividends by creating jobs and increasing tax revenues.
Globally, Magna plans to open 23 new plants, including eight in North America. None would be in Canada.
Despite Magna’s concern, it continues to invest in its Ontario plants, spending up to $150 million per year on capital expenditures, Walker noted.
It also continues to hire and create jobs, he noted.
Last month, Magna announced it would create 75 new jobs with a $1.5 million expansion of a plant in Newmarket, Ont.
Walker’s comments came after the company reported higher first quarter profit and sales and raised its guidance for the rest of the year.
For the first three months of the year, the company said it earned $393 million, or $1.76 per share, up from $369 million, or $1.57 per share, a year earlier. The company reports in U.S. dollars.
Analysts on average expected earnings per share of $2.05, according to estimates compiled by Thomson Reuters.
The company had sales of $8.96 billion in the quarter, compared with $8.3 billion in the same quarter of last year.
Looking ahead to the year, the company said it expects sales of between $34.9 billion and $36.6 billion around the world, up from $34.8 billion in 2013.
Operating margins will be in the mid to high 6 per cent range, versus 6.3 per cent a year earlier. And capital spending will be $1.4 billion, versus $1.2 billion a year ago, the company said.
The increase came as Magna raised its outlook for the auto industry in North America and Europe.
It now expects North American auto makers to produce about 16.8 million vehicles, while Europe is expected to produce about 19.5 million. That compared with earlier expectations for 16.7 million and 19.3 million respectively.
“In the first quarter of 2014, our North American, European, and Asian production sales, as well as tooling, engineering and other sales and complete vehicle assembly sales all increased, while our rest of world production sales declined, each relative to the comparable quarter in 2013,” the company said in a news release.
The company’s Magna Closures unit is expanding its Dortec manufacturing plant to produce electronic control modules for power closure and roof systems.
The plant is also expected to produce a new electronic side-door latch that will be lighter and cost less.
The company, which operates in 29 countries and employs 198,000 people, supplies powertrains, cameras, closures and other auto parts. Major customers include General Motors, BMW, Chrysler, Ford and Volkswagen.
With files from Star wire services

Put an End to the Wind Scam, Before it Bankrupts our Province!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Hudak will end wind, solar fiasco

 

 

It’s amazing only one leader in the Ontario election campaign — the Progressive Conservative’s Tim Hudak — has promised to end the subsidization of inefficient, unreliable and expensive wind and solar power.

This is an obvious way to save taxpayers and hydro ratepayers billions of dollars in future costs.

Premier Kathleen Wynne can’t make that promise because to do so would be to admit the Liberals’ naive infatuation with green energy has been a financial disaster, as the non-partisan Auditor General of Ontario concluded in 2011.

The auditor general said the Liberals blundered into green energy with no business plan and no economic research, ignoring the advice of their own experts and costing taxpayers and electricity consumers billions of added dollars on their hydro bills for decades to come.

The auditor general not only found Liberal claims their Green Energy Act would create 50,000 jobs between 2009 and 2012 were nonsense, but that experience around the world has shown so-called green energy destroys more jobs than it creates because it inevitably leads to higher electricity prices.

As for NDP leader Andrea Horwath — who says she’ll rescind in 2016 the Liberals’ 2010 decision to add the 8% provincial sales tax to hydro bills — she propped up the Liberals as they were signing more and more wind and solar deals, literally throwing more and more public money down a black hole.

Incredibly, Wynne is promising to keep doing this if she’s elected, which is utter madness.

Hudak is the only leader of the three major parties telling the truth, noting he can’t break existing contracts the Liberals have already signed with wind and solar energy developers.

But he can stop throwing good money after bad.

Hudak is also promising to return local autonomy to municipalities so they can decide if they want wind turbines and solar panels in their communities, instead of having them rammed down their throats by the Liberals through their dictatorial Green Energy Act.

As for Liberals’ claim they replaced coal power with wind, it’s utter nonsense.

The Liberals replaced coal with nuclear power and natural gas.

Wind and solar are just another multi-billion-dollar Liberal boondoggle, to go along with their eHealth, Ornge and cancelled gas plants scandals and financial disasters.

Some News from Across the Pond, as they Dismantle their Wind Scam!!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

First British Shale Gas    

‘Could Fuel Homes Next Year’ 

Britain Pulls Plug On Solar Farm Subsidies 
Shale gas could be fuelling British homes for the first time by late 2015, under plans from fracking firm Cuadrilla. The company is preparing to submit planning applications by the end of this month to frack at two sites in Lancashire next year. Francis Egan, Cuadrilla chief executive, said that, if successful, it planned to connect the test fracking sites up to the gas grid, in what would be a milestone first for the fledgling British shale gas industry. –Emily Gosden, The Daily Telegraph, 12 May 2014

Subsidies that have driven the spread of large solar farms across Britain are to be scrapped under plans to stop the panels blighting the countryside. Energy companies that build solar farms currently qualify for generous consumer-funded subsidies through the so-called ‘Renewable Obligation’ (RO) scheme, and had expected to keep doing so until 2017. But the Department of Energy and Climate Change announced on Tuesdaythat it planned to shut the RO to new large solar farms two years early, from April next year. –Emily Gosden, The Daily Telegraph, 13 May 2014Lord Lawson hailed George Osborne as an ally in his fight to change the government’s energy policy. –Francis Elliott, The Times, 13 May 2014

Last week the House of Lords’ Economic Affairs committee revealed that appalling confusion and complexity is deterring vital investment in Britain’s energy industry. Today Lord Lawson of Blaby, who sits on that committee, tells The Times the coalition is not merely misguided on energy but “doesn’t have an energy policy” at all. His remarks will irritate ministers, as well-aimed criticism often does… What Britain lacks is politicians with the courage and vision to embrace it. –Editorial, The Times, 13 May 2014

For years now, this and previous governments have postponed the tough decisions needed to secure Britain’s energy supply for the future and make it affordable for business as well as domestic customers. What passes for a coalition energy policy is in fact a tangle of regulations, subsidies and incentives that is delaying investment, driving up prices over the long term and making blackouts a real possibility by as soon as next year. Britain’s lack of a coherent energy strategy is an emergency that will not go away just because of a short-term outlook of warm weather and long summer evenings. It is, as Dieter Helm, of Oxford University, told the Lords’ committee, a “very slow-motion car crash” that is already happening. –Editorial, The Times, 13 May 2014

They were crazy dreamers who dared to believe that oil and gas could be produced from beneath England’s rolling green hills. No one imagined that oil and gas could be fracked from almost impermeable shales buried thousands of feet below the surface. But Britain’s small onshore energy companies are now in the midst of a mini boom as they seek to capitalise on the new-found interest from investors to consolidate their holdings and raise external finance. Sceptics might suggest Britain’s shale gas companies are on the cusp of a bubble, with more investment being made before anyone is certain that the shale formations will yield commercially meaningful amounts of gas and oil. But bubble-type enthusiasm is essential to the success of any new technology. —John Kemp, Reuters, 12 May 2014

In the wake of the American shale gas boom and the resulting cheaper power, U.S. manufacturers have been moving their work back home from overseas, and now foreign manufacturers, especially from Europe, are moving their facilities to the U.S. While prices in the U.S. power market have fallen due to cheap natural gas, prices in Europe’s power market are much higher, lifted by subsidies for renewable wind and solar power projects. While a decade ago, American manufacturing jobs were flowing to China, this year, more than 50 percent of $1 billion-plus U.S. companies with operations in China are considering moving all or part of their production back home, according to Boston Consulting Group. –Meagan Clark, International Business Times, 10 May 2014

1) First British Shale Gas ‘Could Fuel Homes Next Year’ – The Daily Telegraph, 12 May 2014

2) Britain Pulls Plug On Solar Farm Subsidies – The Daily Telegraph, 13 May 2014

3) Times Leader: Wanted: An Energy Policy – The Times, 13 May 2014

4) Britain’s Shale Flurry: A Game Of Skill And Chance – Reuters, 12 May 2014

5) Shale Boom Attracting Manufacturing to The US From Overseas To Take Advantage Of Cheaper Fuel & Feedstock – International Business Times, 10 May 2014

1) First British Shale Gas ‘Could Fuel Homes Next Year’
The Daily Telegraph, 12 May 2014

Emily Gosden

Shale gas could be fuelling British homes for the first time by late 2015, under plans from fracking firm Cuadrilla.

The company is preparing to submit planning applications by the end of this month to frack at two sites in Lancashire next year.

Francis Egan, Cuadrilla chief executive, said that, if successful, it planned to connect the test fracking sites up to the gas grid, in what would be a milestone first for the fledgling British shale gas industry.

He also suggested homeowners hostile to fracking beneath their land should be entitled to only minimal compensation, if any.

Cuadrilla hopes to gain planning permission for its two sites, near the villages of Roseacre and Little Plumpton, in time to start drilling at the end of this year. They could then be fracked next summer “in a best case scenario”.

“After the initial flow test period, which is up to 90 days, if the flow rates look good then we would want to tie the well into the gas transmission system and flow it for a longer period to assess the flow rate over 18 to 24 months,” Mr Egan said.
The first shale gas could be flowing into the grid by the end of next year. Although quantities of gas from the exploratory sites would be relatively small, the step would be a symbolic first for the industry in Britain.

Just one shale gas well has been partially fracked in the UK to date, by Cuadrilla in 2011, with work halted when it caused earthquakes.

Cuadrilla, however, faces a number of hurdles if it is to proceed as planned at its new sites. As well as planning permission it must obtain numerous permits from the Environment Agency.

Industry sources fear any permission to frack may face judicial review challenge from environmental campaigners.

Cuadrilla could also find its optimal drilling routes blocked by hostile homeowners. The company intends to drill down vertically at each of its sites then out horizontally west for up to two kilometres.

It has signed agreements with farmers at each site allowing it to drill under their land – meaning at least some drilling will be possible – but not with all homeowners above the potential underground drilling area.

“If we were unable to get permission from householders we would have a smaller area, but we could still drill,” Mr Egan said.

Under current trespass law Cuadrilla would have to take hostile landowners to court to gain the right to drill beneath them, but the government is planning give companies an automatic right to drill.

Asked whether compensation should be paid to landowners, Mr Egan said: “I don’t think there’s any disturbance. If someone flies two miles above your house, do you get compensation?”
Full story

2) Britain Pulls Plug On Solar Farm Subsidies 
The Daily Telegraph, 13 May 2014

Emily Gosden

Green energy subsidy scheme will be shut to large solar farms as ministers attempt to curb blight to countryside

SolarFarm
A solar farm near Diptford in the South Hams, Devon
DECC admits that the spread of solar farms has been “much stronger than anticipated in government modelling” and some have been sited “insensitively”. Photo: ALAMYSubsidies that have driven the spread of large solar farms across Britain are to be scrapped under plans to stop the panels blighting the countryside.

Energy companies that build solar farms currently qualify for generous consumer-funded subsidies through the so-called ‘Renewable Obligation’ (RO) scheme, and had expected to keep doing so until 2017.

But the Department of Energy and Climate Change announced on Tuesday that it planned to shut the RO to new large solar farms two years early, from April next year.

The decision follows an admission by ministers that far more projects have been built than expected, leading to an rising subsidy bill for consumers and increasing local opposition.

Greg Barker, the energy minister, pledged last month that solar farms must not become “the new onshore wind” and said he wanted solar panels installed on factory rooftops instead.

Although a separate, new subsidy scheme will be made available to large solar farms, it is expected to be far more difficult for solar farms to gain funding under the new regime.

Full story

3) Times Leader: Wanted: An Energy Policy
The Times, 13 May 2014

Muddled thinking on renewable energy and national priorities has left Britain with no clear strategy for powering growth and keeping the lights on

Last week the House of Lords’ Economic Affairs committee revealed that appalling confusion and complexity is deterring vital investment in Britain’s energy industry. Today Lord Lawson of Blaby, who sits on that committee, tells The Times the coalition is not merely misguided on energy but “doesn’t have an energy policy” at all.His remarks will irritate ministers, as well-aimed criticism often does. For years now, this and previous governments have postponed the tough decisions needed to secure Britain’s energy supply for the future and make it affordable for business as well as domestic customers.

What passes for a coalition energy policy is in fact a tangle of regulations, subsidies and incentives that is delaying investment, driving up prices over the long term and making blackouts a real possibility by as soon as next year. Britain’s lack of a coherent energy strategy is an emergency that will not go away just because of a short-term outlook of warm weather and long summer evenings. It is, as Dieter Helm, of Oxford University, told the Lords’ committee, a “very slow-motion car crash” that is already happening.

Like Heathrow airport, Britain’s power generation system is operating at close to capacity. The country has a capacity margin of just 2 per cent. Ofgem warns this could shrink to zero by the winter of 2015-16 if predicted gains in the efficiency of power usage are not realised.

With zero margin for error, power cuts are virtually inevitable. Britons are in fact becoming more efficient in their use of energy. Overall consumption has fallen slightly since the 1970s and markedly since 2005. A crisis looms despite this trend because of steadily declining North Sea output and the planned obsolescence of ageing power stations.

Estimates from Ofgem and elsewhere suggest that the UK needs between £100 billion and £200 billion in investment in new generating capacity and “smart grid” technology by 2030 to keep the lights on and minimise dependence on unreliable energy suppliers, such as Russia.

This investment has ground to a halt. Work has begun on just one new gas-fired power station in the past 18 months. British and foreign investors are deciding not to risk capital in what should be one of the world’s safest energy markets partly because of uncertainty caused by Labour’s pledge to freeze retail prices should it win the general election next year. The coalition is to blame, too. It has sown confusion with its varying commitment to expensive renewables subsidies, which have a direct effect on household bills but also on industry’s appetite for investment in new gas-powered generating capacity. It has given the competition and markets authority far too long (two years) to report on the pricing strategies of the big six domestic energy suppliers. Above all, it has failed to recognise the potential of shale gas.

America’s shale gas revolution has delivered gas prices two thirds cheaper than those paid by British consumers. British shale gas output may never approach America’s, but the Bowland basin with Sheffield at its centre is one of the world’s largest reserves of its type. Even so, not one new fracking application was received by the Environment Agency in the year after the government’s decision to allow the process to proceed. The reasons are clear. A screen of red tape deterring commercial fracking has been created by multiple agencies, chief among them the department for energy and climate change, the health and safety executive and the environment agency.

Scientists are working on energy sources that leave no soot and cool the planet. In the meantime there is gas, the “inescapable” transitional fuel, as Professor Helm has called it. Britain has it in abundance. What it lacks is politicians with the courage and vision to embrace it.

4) Britain’s Shale Flurry: A Game Of Skill And Chance 
Reuters, 12 May 2014

John Kemp

They were crazy dreamers who dared to believe that oil and gas could be produced from beneath England’s rolling green hills.

Small companies such as Alkane, Egdon, Cuadrilla, Dart, Island Gas, Newton and Star bid for and won Petroleum Exploration and Development Licences (PEDLs) in Britain’s 13th onshore licensing round held back in 2008.

Some of these firms were hoping to find small onshore oil and gas fields. Others thought money could be made from capturing the fugitive methane emissions from abandoned coal mines or by drilling into unworked coal seams and capturing methane directly from the source.

No one imagined that oil and gas could be fracked from almost impermeable shales buried thousands of feet below the surface.

But Britain’s small onshore energy companies are now in the midst of a mini boom as they seek to capitalise on the new-found interest from investors to consolidate their holdings and raise external finance. […]

A GAME OF SKILL AND CHANCENo shale gas has actually been produced in Britain yet. Only one well has been hydraulically fractured, at Preese Hall in Lancashire, and that triggered a series of small earthquakes in April and May 2011, leading to a moratorium on future fracking treatments that has only recently been lifted.

The political appetite for fracking on a large-scale remains untested, though the idea has received powerful backing from finance minister George Osborne and strong endorsement from a recent report by the House of Lords Committee on Economic Affairs.

“The UK will certainly feel the impact of the shale gas revolution. It has its own shale gas resource. The question is whether the UK is to be a producer or simply an importer,” the committee wrote, urging the government to streamline the permitting process.

Environmental groups remain staunchly opposed, and many communities object to large-scale oil and gas drilling. It remains unclear whether drilling firms will ultimately be able to overcome these obstacles.

Sceptics might suggest Britain’s shale gas companies are on the cusp of a bubble, with more investment being made before anyone is certain that the shale formations will yield commercially meaningful amounts of gas and oil.

But bubble-type enthusiasm is essential to the success of any new technology. The same criticisms could have been levelled at George Mitchell, who pioneered shale drilling in Texas amid much scepticism in the 1990s and early 2000s but is now hailed as a genius and one of the most influential businessmen of the late 20th and early 21st centuries.

“Businessmen play a mixed game of skill and chance,” as John Maynard Keynes observed. “If human nature felt no temptation to take a chance, no satisfaction (profit apart) in constructing a factory, a railway, a mine or a farm, there might not be much investment merely as a result of cold calculation.”

Shale pioneers in the United States, and now in Britain, all have something of the characteristics of the successful entrepreneur, including an obsession with commercial ideas that appear to have long odds.

Ultimately, if shale development proves successful, the small pioneering companies will sell their rights to established operators.

There is no guarantee of success for the industry as a whole or in individual licence areas. But if shale is eventually produced in large quantities and draws in more majors like Total, some of these early licence holders could become very rich indeed.

Full story

5) Shale Boom Attracting Manufacturing to The US From Overseas To Take Advantage Of Cheaper Fuel & Feedstock 
International Business Times, 10 May 2014

Meagan Clark

In the wake of the American shale gas boom and the resulting cheaper power, U.S. manufacturers have been moving their work back home from overseas, and now foreign manufacturers, especially from Europe, are moving their facilities to the U.S.

While prices in the U.S. power market have fallen due to cheap natural gas, prices in Europe’s power market are much higher, lifted by subsidies for renewable wind and solar power projects. European utilities have been decommissioning thousands of gigawatts from turbines in an effort to minimize losses.One of the latest examples of a European company moving its manufacturing to the U.S. is Germany’s Siemens AG, which supplies equipment to companies that extract and ship natural gas, converts the fuel into power, and uses electricity on a large scale for manufacturing.

“Even though we have already missed a few opportunities, especially in unconventional oil-and-gas exploration, we still have excellent market-entry opportunities, especially in North America,” Siemens CEO Joe Kaeser said at a news conference on Wednesday.

On Tuesday, Kaeser named former Royal Dutch Shell PLC strategy head and American Lisa Davis as the new chief of the power business for Siemens. She will work from the U.S, a first for Munich-based Siemens, the Wall Street Journal reported. Siemens competes with Conneticut-based General Electric Co.

Germany’s BASF, the world’s largest chemical company, announced this month it was considering building a $1.4 billion plant in the U.S. to convert natural gas into propylene, used in many petrochemicals.

Austria-based steelmaker Voestalpine AG announced plans last year to invest more than $760 million in a Texas plant, motivated by inexpensive shale gas.

While a decade ago, American manufacturing jobs were flowing to China, this year, more than 50 percent of $1 billion-plus U.S. companies with operations in China are considering moving all or part of their production back home, according to Boston Consulting Group.

Get your money out of Wind & Solar!!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Energy companies–a grim future, Texas company belly up.

Posted on May 13, 2014 by  

This is close to home, a Texas based energy company on the ropes.

 

Thanks to the enviros and their running dogs in the chattering class, energy companies are in a bit of a bind. After all the Bamster promises to make coal-fired energy a museum piece–right? One thing leftist can do is destroy, that’s actually pretty easy.

Many years ago I worked with an engineer who had moved over to work for Texas Utilities in public relations/legislative affairs. We were battling the air pollution fanatics from the EPA and all their allies in the NGO community, along with people like Laura Miller, an ex consumer greenie advocate who was Mayor of Dallas and put together a coalition of enviros to stop coal energy development. TXU at one point was going to put up 10 coal fired plants and Miller and her hysterical friends were opposed. So along comes KKR, big NY investment outfit and they guy TXU.

I stopped having anyone to work with, cause they caved and scrapped the 10 plants plan. Now they have maneuvered themselves into bankruptcy, a big bust.

You might say that I have spent a lot of time on a losing cause–because the army arrayed on the other side is flush with the 20 billion a year that goes to the lefty green movement.

Here’s a story by Tucker on the death of Energy Futures, a company that came out of the buy out many years ago of Texas Utilities and the decision by the investment firm to try to make Texas Utilities a green friendly company. Nice going boys.

Kathleen Wynne lives in her own little world….

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Campaign without a clue

John-Robson

BY  ,PARLIAMENTARY BUREAU

 

How can we expect good government from politicians so clueless about themselves? I mean, take Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne. Please.

She seems quite pleasant. But she exhibits an eerie lack of self-awareness.

Consider that she chose to kick off her re-election campaign in the old riding of disgraced former Premier Dalton McGuinty. She knew enough to make sure he wasn’t there and did not, when she dared speak his name aloud, appear with a flash and a bang. But she said, “What better place to get started” than a riding “known for a rich history of leaders we can all be proud of.”

Oh, you mean the guy who lied about not raising taxes, whether they were taxes, and whether he’d run deficits, ripped a Tory plan to fund religious schools when his wife taught in the separate Catholic system and he personally had endorsed a separate Jewish system, reversed himself on funding intensive autism treatment for older kids, public-private partnerships for hospitals and abortion and just generally lied a lot before vanishing like an incriminating e-mail after wasting a billion dollars cancelling power plants to save Liberal seats.

You’re seriously proud of that? Or did you somehow not notice it even though you were there the whole time?

Wynne then claimed Ontario voters face a “critical choice.” We don’t. But the constant atmosphere of crisis in politics is fuelled by people unable to grasp that half of all elections are less important than the average even if they’re in them, because they have no perspective on themselves.

Thus she warned “This is a pivotal time, we really cannot risk veering off track — whether we go to the far left or to the far right… We need to move forward with a steady, balanced approach.” And she urged citizens to choose wisely between “risky tactics” and “safe hands.”

Now this is a preposterous misread of her adversaries. The far left wants to nationalize industry and disarm the West, the far right wants to eliminate social programs and ban abortion. Horwath and Hudak are boring fiddlers solidly within the mainstream of contemporary political thought. Unfortunately.

Of course you might say well, she’s just lying about her opponents, a fitting tribute to D. McGuinty in his old riding. But before leaping to that conclusion, consider that a woman entirely clueless about herself and her colleagues could certainly be in that state regarding her adversaries. And if Wynne ever heard the Delphic maxim “Know thyself” she plainly didn’t understand it.

For instance this “safe hands” business. To work, a lie has to be plausible. But the gas plant scandal wasn’t just sleazy. It was panicky and amateurish. Deleting e-mails and thinking we wouldn’t find out has “run in circles, scream and shout” written all over it. And it’s just one in a series of bungling scandals from eHealth to Ornge.

Then there’s the core notion, common among Liberals, that they hold the vital centre against the sterile extremes haunted by ideologues. Forget calling the others far left and far right. How can she depict herself as moderate?

The Ontario Liberals have doubled spending, doubled the debt, and expanded government in every direction they can think of. Look how fast they ditched the Drummond Report to preserve all-day kindergarten which their steady hands then botched. They are well left of Andrea Horwath judging by their record. But Wynne does not acknowledge it because, I maintain, she doesn’t know it.

What she said, startling as it may seem, really is what she thinks. She’s is running on a record she doesn’t understand, to implement a platform she doesn’t understand, against opponents she doesn’t understand, for reasons she doesn’t understand.

Business as usual in politics, I’m afraid.

 

Wind Turbines….A Travesty in Rural Ontario, that Affects Everyone!!!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Ontario Wind Turbines

Ontario has the most expensive electricity in North America
leading to unaffordable hydro bills, manufacturing leaving, high unemployment and a stagnant economy.
This is the result of over-priced wind power; an industry Ontario doesn’t need and can’t afford.
(Comparing to the other provinces and the continental U.S.)

“Ontario is probably the worst electricity market in the world,”
Pierre-Olivier Pineau, Associate Professor and Electricity Market Expert, University of Montreal HEC Business School.

 

Ontario’s Energy Policy affects every person in Ontario.

Eleven years ago, Ontario had a vibrant energy sector. It has changed since then.
The following is a summary of the energy policy that is being implemented by the Ontario Government.
All supporting information is under Sources.

Ripley-KincardineRipley-Kincardine, Lake Huron

 

Over the next 20 years, your household will pay an additional $40,000 for electricity.

The cost of wind power will add $110,000,000,000.00 to our electrical bills.
To appreciate the cost, $100 billion can buy 5,000,000 Honda Civics.

 

Ontario is building 6736 Wind Turbines.

We already have clean and excess power from water, nuclear and gas.


Bruce Peninsula

 

We pay more for wind power than any province/state in North America.

We are subsidizing the wind industry.

The Ontario Government pays the wholesale price of 11-13.5 cents per kwh for wind power.
The average retail price for wind power in the U.S. is 7 cents.
The average retail price for Ontario nuclear, water and gas is 7 cents.

Ontario hydro consumers pay for a debt that was actually paid off in 2010.
The 10% clean energy rebate on your hydro bill is charged to Ontario tax payers.
Ontario is the only province/state that charges HST, delivery, and regulatory fees on electricity.
Your hydro rates increase every May and October.

In 2007, you paid 7 cents per kwh.
In 2014, you pay 14-27 cents per kwh, depending on usage and location.
Check your hydro bill; divide the total (including HST, delivery and regulatory fees) by your usage.

1699 kwh costs $210 = 14 cents per kwh.
288 kwh costs $79 = 27 cents per kwh.

Compare our rates to: 6.8 cents in Quebec and 7.9 cents in Manitoba.

Pro-wind groups claim that our expensive electricity is due to expensive nuclear power.
However, the Ontario Power Generation states otherwise as per the link below:
http://www.opg.com/generating-power/nuclear/Pages/nuclear.aspx

 


Shelburne

 

Manufacturing is leaving Ontario.

“Ontario has the highest industrial rates in North America.”
Association of Major Power Consumers in Ontario. Refer to Sources for complete report.

Caterpillar (2 plants), United Steel. Heinz, Bicks, International Trucking,
General Motors, Navistar, Kellogg’s, John Deer, Lance Bakeries, Kraft Foods, Unilever.

NOVA Chemicals says the cost of power is critical in its decision to locate a multi-billion-dollar polyethylene expansion in Sarnia Ontario.
Their alternative is the U.S. Gulf Coast where rates are a fraction of ours.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/ontario-drives-manufacturers-away-with-overpriced-electricity/article14854752/

Since 2006, power usage has decreased by 6%.
Ontario has almost 1 million people out of work.
Ontario’s $227 billion debt is the worst in North America.

“Ontario’s economy has not performed on par with the rest of Canada,
due in part to its slow economic growth and spiralling public debt.”
Fraser Institute, April 2014. Refer to Sources for complete report.

 


Bruce Peninsula

 


Gone are the days of beautiful Ontario….

“These wind projects will change this place more totally, more rapidly and more permanently
than anything in the past 10,000 years”
James Corcoran, South Huron, Ontario
30 years experience, environmental assessments on behalf of developers.

The Human & Environmental Impact 

To appreciate the full impact of turbines on our people, please find the time  to read this:
http://www.southwesternontario.ca/news/public-fills-gallery-to-hear-wind-turbine-concerns/

Wind companies pay proportionally less taxes than the rest of us; turbines are assessed at a fraction of the actual value.
Farmers who sign 20 years leases with Wind Companies also sign a gag order whereby they must promote turbines and cannot criticize.

Wind companies are exempt from many Ontario laws.

Examples: municipal bylaws, building permits, road weight restrictions, proximity to highways, drainage.
Example: The restriction on rural bridges with 1/2 ton limits, where the heaviest load is usually a tractor,
are lifted during the construction of a wind project.
Example: Wind Projects can violate the Labour Act.
These cranes from the Adelaide wind project were left in this position overnight.

cranes

The Ministries of Environment and Natural Resources have changed laws that apply only to wind companies.

Example: there is no protection of wetlands; death or harm to endangered species.
Example: If you destroy an eagle’s nest, the fine is $10,000;  whereas wind companies are exempt.

Wind companies routinely sue municipalities/persons who get in their way.

The government supplies lawyers to back a wind company;
but has never backed a municipality, group or person.

Laws were passed where municipalities have no rights regarding wind projects in their jurisdiction.
Over 80 municipalities are “unwilling hosts” to turbines, but are not acknowledged.

Every turbine will permanently destroy 3 acres of land; roughly 21,000 acres of farmland lost forever.
Ontario turbines are closer to humans than any place in the world.
People are suffering from constant turbine noise and wind turbine syndrome which can be life threatening.
People are abandoning their homes at a unprecedented pace; very few want to live in or buy a house surrounded by turbines.
The fortunate ones are bought out by the wind companies, but sign a gag order as to why they left.
Areas in rural Ontario are becoming ghost towns.


The Birds

swans-thedford-bogMarch 2014 – Lambton Shores – Rest area for Migrating Tundra Swans
March 2015 – Lambton Shores – Rest area for newly built wind turbines.


People call turbines bird blenders because they slice, maim and slaughter birds.
Turbines will be built in the paths of the millions of birds that migrate to or through Ontario.
Turbines kill more bats than birds (their lungs explode from the turbine’s drop in air pressure). Don’t neglect the importance of bats to our eco-system.


A Perspective of Turbine Height

Using the Absolute Towers in Mississauga rendered in as a backdrop:
Absolute Towers is 56 storeys.
The small turbine is the CNE turbine – 299 feet high.
The mid-size is the average Ontario turbine – 380 feet high.
The tall one is the new Ontario turbine – 550 feet and taller.

Three

The rendering below provides a perspective of Ontario’s new turbines.
The building behind is 38 storeys.

TheMega

 


Ontario’s wind energy policy is convoluted and wastes money.

    • Nuclear, hydro, & gas is clean, cheap and has a 100% reliability, but, wind is given priority to our grid.
    • Wind power is expensive and unreliable; available 20-30% of the time.
    • When there is no wind, there is no wind power available.
    • For every kwh of wind power, we need one kwh of backup, that could otherwise be used as our sole source.
    • Ontario is spending $11 billion building transmission lines to feed power from every wind project.
      That’s an additional $2750 cost to your household
    • Ontario has too much power and we either, pay the USA & Quebec to get rid of the excess or charge 2.5 per kwh.
      In 2013 alone, the loss was $1 billion which will cost your household an additional $250.
    • Quebec turns around and sells our hydro at 5 cents per kwh to bordering States.
    • When there is too much power, Ontario pays $1 million dollars a day to take a nuclear plant off-line ($66 million in 2013)
      and pays wind companies to shut down their turbines.
    • $6 billion was spent to increase the power at Niagara Falls; only to divert the water when there is excess power.
    • Ontario pays gas plants to run as backup for wind power.
    • The first weekend in August, Ontario lost $10 million because of highly windy days resulting in unexpected power to the grid.
      The same occurred on November 9 & 10, where Ontario lost another $20 million.
    • September 11, 2013: Ontario agreed to pay Wind Energy companies $200,000 per mw not to supply power,
      The government says it’s “cheaper than paying the USA & Quebec to use it”.
      Since then, new wind projects continue to be approved.
    • The plan to build two new nuclear reactors at Darlington was abruptly cancelled in October 2013 at a cost of $180 million.
    • During the 2011 election, the Liberals cancelled the construction of 2 gas plants to win Liberal seats.
      These cancellations totaled $1.1 billion which will cost your household an additional $250.
    • The Lambton coal plant had just been upgraded at a cost of $1 billion to produce clean coal before it was closed in October 2013.
      That will cost your household another $250.
      Ironically, the Lambton coal plant is 1 km from a coal plant in Michigan that is still active.

“This situation is expected to get much worse over the next several years as significant amounts of wind,
hydraulic and nuclear generation will be coming into service while expected electrical demand will continue
to be stagnant.”
Ontario Society of Professional Engineers. Refer to Sources for complete report

 

Truth is stranger than fiction

Ontario pays 11-13.5 cents for wind power.
Ontario pays or charges Quebec 2.5 cents take our excess.
The loss is subsidized by Ontario consumers.
Quebec sells it to border States for 5 cents.
Consequently:
Manufacturers can move to the States and get cheap power; where a portion is sourced from Ontario and subsidized by Ontario consumers.

New York State sees an opportunity.
Promotional information was sent to Ontario’s Manufacturing sector citing Ontario’s high energy costs as a good reason to relocate to New York State.http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/soaring-energy-prices-making-ontario-look-dim-for-manufacturers/article17560172/

 

Wolfe Island – photo rendering shows pre-turbine days
Wolfe Rendering

Wolfe Island – actual photo
8

 

The Vulnerability of our Grid

    • When produced, power has to be used immediately; there’s no technology to store it for a later time.
    • There is excess power almost every hour of every day, and Ontario scrambles to find a state/province that will take it.
    • Depending on their power needs at the time, we either give it away (spill it), pay to take it (spill it) or charge a very low rate.
    • Because wind power is so unpredictable, the IESO staff are continually manipulating the grid; telling the nuclear, gas and hydro suppliers to adjust their output accordingly; and the excess is then sent to Quebec, Manitoba and the States.

 

According to the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers:

Carbon Dioxide Emissions will increase by 48% in 2030,
because gas plants constantly starting up and shutting down expel more emissions than if they ran continually.

Much of our wind power will go to Quebec and the States.
Wind blows mostly at night and in the winter when we need power the least.
There is no wind on a hot summer day, when our air conditioners need it the most.

Constant changes to the grid are prone to error and Ontario’s grid wasn’t built to handle such.
Be prepared for frequent and long blackouts or worse, as in complete failure of our energy grid.

Chatham-Kent-wind-turbines-from-Lake-Erie-and-Rondeau-Bay15
Rondeau Bay

 

Ontario has more than enough power with Nuclear, Hydro (water) and Gas.

Ontario’s average demand for power is roughly 18,000 mw.
In the last 8 years, Ontario’s highest demand for power was 27,005 mw on August 1, 2006.

The amount of available reliable power is 30,806 mw which far exceeds the demand.
Nuclear  = 12947 mw:  Hydro = 7939 mw;  Gas = 9920 mw.

The Liberals will have added 3725 mw of installed wind energy by the end of 2014;
with intentions of adding more.

“Ontario will phase in wind, solar and bioenergy 
….with 10,700 MW online  by 2021.”
Ministry of Energy

(Ontario is offering 44-88 cents per kwh for solar and bioenergy.)

 

Chatham Kent –  photo rendering shows pre-turbine days
chatham kent 1

Chatham Kent – actual photo
chatham-kent-ontario-kruger-energy-port-alma-wind-from-hwy3-talbot-trail-4

 

Does this make sense to you??

 ”The province’s wind and solar power initiatives were decided and implemented in such haste
that “no comprehensive business-case evaluation was done to objectively evaluate the impacts
of the billion-dollar commitment.”
Auditor General of Ontario

There are about 50 resident wind lobbyists in Toronto.

The Liberals introduced and passed the Green Energy Act 2009.
The NDP have supported the Liberals on wind energy since its inception.
The PC’s do not support subsidized wind power. They want it stopped.

This has been going on for years.  One example:
In 2004, Mike Crawley, the (then) President for the Ontario Liberals,
was awarded a wind power contract that guarantees his company $66,000 a day for a total of $1/2 Billion dollars.
Since then, Mike Crawley continues to build additional Wind Projects.

The Wind Industry held a fundraising event for Kathleen Wynne in April 2013.

Those who promote Wind power, benefit financially by doing so.
David Suzuki, Pembina Institute, Cleantech, MaRs,  Environmental Defence,
Friends of the Wind, Windfacts and CANWEA.

A wind company is getting a pass on violating the law?
In the Niagara region, four turbines that were built too close to residents, are violating the law and need to be dismantled.
The Minister of Energy has done nothing.
http://www.niagarathisweek.com/news-story/4390620-enforce-the-law-hudak-to-energy-minister

 

Lake Ontario – photo rendering shows pre-turbine days
sail copy

Lake Ontario – actual photosail

 

Every project could be stopped today; if the Liberals want to.

The Ontario Government has the discretionary power to cancel or modify these contracts but it’s clear they don’t want to.

An Ontario court ruling in the decision of Trillium vs. Ontario, 2013, clearly states that:
“Governments are free to alter policies in the public interest.” 
“Companies in the renewable power business participate in government subsidy programs ‘at their own risk’.”

As of March, 2014, the Liberals are continuing with the 55 incomplete wind power projects (about 4900 turbines) that could be stopped legally.

“If you are asking me, will you cancel those [wind project] contracts outright? The answer is no we won’t!”
Kathleen Wynne, in Kincardine, April 24, 2014

For ruling, refer to Discussion at the bottom of this page
http://www.osler.com/NewsResources/Appeal-Court-Allows-2-Billion-Wind-Farm-Action-to-Proceed-Against-Government-of-Ontario/

 

Chatham Kent Airport
Chatham Kent Airport – Location of turbines was denied by Transport Canada,
fought by the municipality, but approved by the Ontario Government.
The same is happening in Collingwood, Peterborough, Goderich, Kincardine, Huron Park, Grand Bend and the Niagara Region.
The sky-diving club in Niagara Region will have to shut down.

Energy Platform by Party

The PC’s introduced Bill 42 in 2012 and Bill 39 in 2013 to eliminate wind subsidies and give control back to municipalities.
The NDP’s and Liberals voted against these bills. Refer to Sources.

Liberal

Will be pursuing additional wind power projects in 2015 and again in 2016.
Remove the Ontario Hydro Debt charge on January 1, 2016. (About $60 a year decrease in costs).
Discontinue the Clean Energy Rebate on December 31, 2015. (About $170 a year increase in costs).
Introduce a surcharge for families making over $40,000, to subsidize lower income families.

NDP

Committed to “aggressively expand renewable energy”.
Honour existing green energy contracts
Place a moratorium on all renewable power projects starting in 2018.

Progressive Conservatives

Scrap Ontario’s wind energy policy.
Give control back to municipalities.
Put a moratorium on wind energy projects.
Eliminate wind subsidies, which would substantially reduce our hydro bills.

“We propose scrapping the Green Energy Act and implementing an immediate moratorium
on industrial wind turbines until the jury is in on health and environmental studies.
We will not sign any more FIT contracts and will take a look at the existing ones.”
PC MPP Toby Barrett, April 2, 2014

 

 

Wolfe Island121

 

Wolfe Island before & after the Liberal’s energy policies

 

Is Nothing Sacred?

Temple_Rendering___Content

Near Peterborough, a $40 million project to build the largest Buddhist complex outside of China is in jeopardy.
The Liberals knowingly approved wind turbines to surround the complex.
The people in charge of the development say these turbines will have a negative impact on the serenity of the complex.
This complex would have attracted about 45,000 visitors a year and generated more than $20 million for Ontario.

 

Wind Farms slated for Ontario

Click here to see maps of these projects

Rondeau Bay – photo rendering showing pre-turbine days
Rondeau Bay Rendering

Rondeau Bay – Actual photo
chatham-kent-ontario-internaional-power-gdf-suez-from-across-rondeau-bay-from-erieau-2

 

Wind verses Nuclear

  • Nuclear power costs 6.8 cents per kwh, period.
    Wind power costs 11-13.5 cents per kwh, plus all other costs mentioned above.
  • One wind project approved for the area east of Grand Bend is approximately 34 km long and 16 km wide.
    The nuclear footprint is 9 sq. kilometers.
  • It will have 63 wind turbines with a maximum output of 102 mwh.
  • Applying efficiency factor of 30%, actual output will be 30 mwh.
  • Ontario average usage is 18,000 mwh.
  • Nuclear can provide approximately 12,947 mwh 24/7.
  • This wind project has the potential of providing .16% (1/6th of one percent) our energy needs.
  • When there is no wind, it will provide 0% of our energy needs.

Map

tmap

 

 

 

 In 10-20 years

  • The Niagara Falls hydro generating stations are 100 years old, but wind turbines are good for only 10-20 years.
  • Each turbine construction consists of 800 tonnes of cement for support, approximately 250 tonnes of unrecyclable materials, 700 litres of hydraulic fuel and, 600 kilograms of rare earth metals. Multiply these numbers by 6736 and Ontario is facing a potential ecological conundrum.
  • The are no bonds posted to ensure these turbines will be dismantled at the end of their life cycle. It is estimated that a turbine, depending on size, will cost $400,000 to $1,000,000 to dismantle.
  • Given that wind companies are predominantly foreign, change ownership or, go bankrupt, it is quite realistic to expect 100′s or 1,000′s of dead turbines in 20 years and left standing.
  • This is happening already. Wind Companies usually don’t fix or dismantle broken turbines and, Ontario already has many non-functioning turbines.
    If companies won’t dismantle a couple of turbines now; what about the future ones?.
  • The Liberals have no plans as to where to dispose these materials, nor have indicated that wind companies will be responsible for the costs of building the landfill sites or depots.
  • One can only assume, that the cost to dispose 6736 turbines will be covered by the people of Ontario.

In 10-20 years, we could be faced with a landscape of old, rusted out, broken down turbines.

 

 

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation:
Launched a petition to dismantle the Liberal Green Energy Act.
https://www.taxpayer.com/resource-centre/petitions/petition?tpContentId=84

 

128,202 total views since Mar