Greenpeace, Pembina Institute and World Wildlife Fund living in Disneyland

The report calls for wind to contribute about 7 terawatt hours, or triple the current output. But wind power has to be balanced by other forms of generation that can quickly be ramped up or down to offset the variations in wind.

That offsetting generation is generally provided by fossil fuels such as natural gas or coal (which Ontario plans to eliminate by 2014.)

The report doesn’t address of what forms of energy might be needed to balance variable sources of energy, especially wind.

John Spears,  Business Reporter   Toronto Star

The “renewable is doable” coalition, which includes Greenpeace, the Pembina Institute and the World Wildlife Fund, are to release a report Tuesday calling for Ontario to boost its targets for renewable energy.

“Ontario cannot afford to stay on the nuclear path,” the report argues, citing the $26 billion that was quoted by suppliers in 2009 for two new nuclear reactors in Ontario, to replace the aging Pickering station.

The province rejected the bids as too high.

The coalition’s report says that customers would have to pay 20 cents a kilowatt hour on the energy potion of their electricity bill to pay for new nuclear power at those prices.

“Ontario’s energy policy is still based on decisions made in 2006 when nuclear costs were claimed to be low and renewable energy costs were claimed to be high,” Sean-Patrick Stensil of Greenpeace said in an interview.

“The context has significantly changed, so the government has good reason to rethink its policies.”

Ontario’s Pickering nuclear generating station has about a decade of life left before it must close down.

The province’s current policy is to replace it with new nuclear power.

But the coalition says a basket of renewable sources – including wind, hydroelectric, solar and “biogas” collected from decomposing manure, forestry waste and landfills – could do the job for 13.5 cents a kilowatt hour.

It would be augmented by power from highly efficient combined heat and power plants that produce both electricity and heat for housing or industry, plus additional conservation measures to damp down demand.

The report notes that Ontario’s thirst for power is already shrinking growing. Consumption peaked in 2005 at 157 terawatt hours; last year it was 139 terawatt hours. (A terawatt hour is a billion kilowatt hours.)

The report doesn’t address of what forms of energy might be needed to balance variable sources of energy, especially wind.

Wind currently occupies a small niche in Ontario power production: Last year it generated just 2.3 terawatt hours, or 1.7 per cent of Ontario’s electricity.

The report calls for wind to contribute about 7 terawatt hours, or triple the current output. But wind power has to be balanced by other forms of generation that can quickly be ramped up or down to offset the variations in wind.

That offsetting generation is generally provided by fossil fuels such as natural gas or coal (which Ontario plans to eliminate by 2014.)

Stencil noted that nuclear energy also has buried costs. For example, the Bruce A and Pickering A nuclear stations were shut down for a decade or more (Two Pickering A reactors will never restart.)

The cost of having that much idle capacity, and the cost of replacing that power, is never included when nuclear operating costs are quoted, he said.

Big nuclear construction projects in Ontario have invariably run over budget, he added.

19 thoughts on “Greenpeace, Pembina Institute and World Wildlife Fund living in Disneyland

  1. Here’s a good idea…every time Pembina, Greenpeace and WWF say anything through the “mainstream government owned media”, just turn it by 180 degrees and you will have the TRUTH!

    Their involvement with the UN should be the red flag that demands further investigation into their “off the wall” comments!

    Why these 3 NGO’s would be so deeply involved in setting policy for Government “smacks” of partisan politics!

  2. The Lord works in mysterious ways – about the same time this was hitting the Star’s site for the mentally inept the IESO showed wind output at 1.

    The fact is the capacity factor keeps falling, and the cost isn’t declining. It is neither useful nor developing into anything other than a waste of our money at best, and some people’s health at worst.

    As for the Star’s article (is Spears doing penance for coming close to an intelligent article last week?) – the wind commitment for the next 20 years must be getting up near $20 billion in today’s dollars. That would be for about 5000MW which would be planned as providing 500MW (about 1 coal unit), and would average maybe 1500MW (probably 1200).

    The nuclear bids were for 60 years – 2400MW and 3200MW if I remember correctly.

  3. No fast and dirty costs comparison can be made between nuclear and wind. Nuclear which produces a lot of power can be located near demand to reduce supporting infrastructure costs (i.e. transmission). Wind barely produces much power and of that little power produced some if not all at times is not useable. The cost quoted for wind does not include the higher cost of supporting infrastructure needed to get the power to the consumers. If Ontario focuses on renewable energy like wind, conservation will be mandatory as power would only be available when power is produced. In the last few days if we relied on wind most homes and industries in Ontario would be without power, though everyone connected would continue to get their monthly electricity bill to cover the costs of being connected. Private smoke belching gensets may be the power future for the homes of Ontario.

  4. Zen
    Nuclear also requires costly transmission and infrastructure costs.

    Also, (I haven’t found an answer to this yet), who pays for the storage of nuclear waste for 500-1000 years?

    From my research talking to engineers in the industry, wind is a way to make “gas heat and power” plants more efficient. They are already very efficient due to the fact that heat is not wasted but reused for heating (a nuclear plant dumps its heat into the lake) and when the wind blows, these gas plants slow down or stop for 30% of the year. An interesting way of looking at it I thought.

  5. So – we are going to spend billions of tax dollars on machines that allow gas plants with additional capacity to slow down a little for 30% of the year?

    Let’s remember that when “slowing down” – gas plants become less efficient in their fuel usage and much more impactful in terms of emissions.

    So – let’s spend billions, increase emissions and use more fossil fuel – just so we can build industrial wind turbines across the province, appease the concerns of misinformed environmental zealots and line the pockets of multi-national energy companies?

    It just doesn’t make too much sense to me.

  6. zen2then – I was just trying to introduce a basic comparison.
    I got through the first couple of pages – the report is willfully stupid, as per the Goebbel’s school policy, so there really wasn’t any point.

    Sam – nice argument. Wind is good for natural gas.

    We know.

    You have 2 cows.
    You give one to your neighbour.

    You have 2 cows.
    The State takes both and gives you some milk.

    You have 2 cows.
    The State takes both and sells you some milk.

    You have 2 cows.
    The State takes both and shoots you.

    You have 2 cows.
    The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and then throws the milk away…

    You have two cows.
    You sell one and buy a bull.
    Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows.
    You sell them and retire on the income.

    SURREALISM (aka: Living in Disney Ontario)
    You have two giraffes.
    The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.


    All together now — from the top… Hummmmm!

  8. This is the real truth about wind farms and organizations like Sierra Club, Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund and others. They are all mixed in with greedy money making corporations to screw regular folks around and make big bucks. It’s always been about money. It’s never been about the planet or saving the whales or anything else. I’ve just recently come to this realization. These green organizations can’t be trusted.

  9. Klem, I believe the environmental movement started out with very good intentions. The following says it best….

    One of the founders of Greenpeace told a rice industry gathering Tuesday that environmentalism has been hijacked by extremists opposed to the intensive agriculture and biotechnology needed to feed and clothe the world’s population. “Environmental extremists are basically anti-human,” Patrick Moore told members of the USA Rice Federation on the final day of its conference in Little Rock. “Humans are characterized as a cancer on the Earth.” An uncritical news media, he also charged, reports much of what organizations such as Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund offer as fact without checking its validity.

    If you understand that mentality, you’ll also understand why they simply don’t care if people are getting sick from wind turbines.

  10. Sam says:
    “I guess Greenpeace didn’t pay enough.”

    Are you sure that you didn’t mean to type, ” I guess Greenpeace didn’t get PAID enough.”?

    The public no longer falls for this kind of lame misdirection and the fact that you haven’t figured that out yet is quite revealing.

    “If Greenpeace would like to have a serious conversation about who, exactly, is spreading misinformation I’m up for that – since it’s overwhelming obvious that the big oil jackpot was awarded to those on the Greenpeace side of the debate.”

    MA is correct – pathetic.

  11. Donna Laframboise of No Frakking Consensus does good research. If she posted it I believe it till proven otherwise.


    But that’s just the beginning. The Washington Post also points out that Conservation International, another green group which insists climate change represents a “profound threat,” has “accepted $2 million in donations from BP over the years and partnered with the company on a number of projects.”


    Yup! Pathetic!

  12. I don’t know if you remember BP’s motto a few years ago but they called themselves “Beyond Petoleum” It makes sense that they were sponsoring groups like Greenpeace to help guide them into a new energy frontier. The last few years they realized that there is more money in oil so they pulled out.

    On another note, conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh was trying to convince his listeners today that the oil spill was actually good for the gulf (its microbes) and that the media was to blame for how the spill was handled.. Haha!! The nerve. Again follow the money trail.

  13. Here is another one Sam:

    Science Daily is a front for the oil companies though — so watch it.

    As for BC forest alliance — yup just another front. Lotta conspiracies out there. No kidding!

    Biggest conspiracy I know of is our Premiers Collaboration withe Big Wind. That may account for the odor in the air…

    I know a guy who knows a guy…

  14. Sam et al:

    Ok Here is the likely quote…

    “RUSH: Back in the initial days of the oil spill — well, I always take a risk here. In our culture today, folks, it’s a risk to tell the truth. And I said, “Yeah, spill is bad, we’d rather not have it happen, but the earth is a magical thing, and this is going to be taken care of. The ocean, the Gulf of Mexico will handle the oil that is leaking into it, that is pouring into it. The problem we’re going to have is if oil gets ashore. That’s when it’s a problem, when it gets into the actual ground itself then you’ve got major cleanup challenges. But out in the Gulf it’s a blip. And, remember, we gave you the stats. Fill a bathtub with water, the amount of oil in that bathtub to equal the spill in the Gulf of Mexico wouldn’t fill a thimble. In fact, it would be infinitesimal. There’s now a graphic that’s out there that shows inside of a football stadium. If the inside of, say, Texas Stadium, or the Superdome were the Gulf of Mexico, the amount of oil that’s leaked so far would be equivalent to a 24-ounce can of beer. ”

    Here is the link…

    Based on the links I posted previously he is correct…

    It’s easy to garner outrage when you publish quotes about what somebody said about what somebody said…

    He is echoing what some scientists say (see previous links)… so blast them all will you… 🙁

  15. Sam:

    I have tried to find these horrible quotes… Can’t find them. DO me the favor of reading this — Sam and anyone else who heard the story…

    Please note that he is quoting right wing organs like:

    USA Today: “Gulf Spill Has Not Fouled Most Beaches but Hurts Tourism.” How did that happen? If the spill has not fouled the vast majority of beaches,

    So the New York Times: “Reporters” sorry, partisan political operatives “flying over the area Sunday spotted only a few patches of sheen and an occasional streak of thicker oil, and radar images taken since then suggest that these few remaining patches are quickly breaking down in the warm surface waters of the gulf.

    And this is the Washington Post: “Oil from the BP blowout is degrading rapidly in the warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico and becoming increasingly difficult to find on the water surface, the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Tuesday.


    Makes it a little hard to stomach — right?

    A little research never hurts….

    Now go make some toast and peanut butter with your BP supplied wind power — they must have been importing today. 🙂

Comments are closed.