Response to McGuinty Liberals Dishonest “Script”

To Pay Hoy, MPP, Chatham-Kent

I have attached for you and for all MPP’s a response to the script sheet you forwarded to me.  In this document I’ve outlined how you and this McGuinty gov’t are duping the Ontario public with unsubstantiated rhetoric that collapses like a house of cards when one takes the time to critically think about this information. 
 
Despite this list of misleading accolades that you and your Liberal co-horts are trying to pawn off onto us, you are ignoring the largest problem which is dealing with those who are suffering from having wind turbines near their homes.  A large portion within your own riding now that Chatham/Kent is supporting close to 350 turbines already built and slated for construction prior to the GEA. 

Despite the repeated efforts to let this gov’t know of people having to abandon their homes,  you ignore this based on your cursory assessment that you live close to turbines (which you have yet to identify the distance) and you are experiencing no effect. Perhaps you have family members who are involved in one of these projects?  If so,  you need to declare your conflict of interest. 

I am absolutely appalled at the lack of honesty you and the Ontario government are demonstrating in the approach to this issue. As you may know, demonstrations against industrial scale wind energy development have now escalated from a few dozen people to hundreds, even 1,000 at a recent event in Fergus…I would say that the people of Ontario are waking up to the truth. I ask again for you to abandon your government’s “script” , and represent your people, which is what we elected you to do.

Colette McLean

Acknowledgment of receipt would be appreciated.

Response to the script forwarded to C. McLean from Pat Hoy MPP Chatham/Kent.  Nov. 06,2010

Points outlined in black are direct quotations from Pat Hoy’s office.

Since 2003, Ontario has seen more than 8,000 megawatts (MW) of cleaner electricity brought on line.

Cleaner energy, I have come to find out, is viewed by this McGuinty government as not only renewables but also Natural Gas of which over 2000 MW was granted contract in 2009 and a total of over 5112 MW has been granted since 2005.  Therefore more than 60% of  “cleaner energy” is being derived from mostly Natural Gas expansion. For a limited  resource (10 years for Canada as a whole without further exploration into shale fracking which is known to pollute aquifers) that is largely used to heat our homes,  is this a wise use for the supposed benefit of reducing coal usage?  Natural gas is only marginally cleaner than “clean coal” but a lot more expensive. Also according to Mr Suzuki natural gas particulates are more harmful to people with asthma.

 Source OPA website:

More than 5,000 kilometres of upgrades to Hydro One’s transmission and distribution lines, with over $6-billion in investments in these systems since 2003.

The “upgrades”  are in essence expansion of the lines largely in areas where there is a perceived resource in wind generation as well as the upgrade from Bruce Nuclear to Toronto;  something that has been on the books for a long time and which will be completely at  taxpayers expense.   Delivery cost charges are now 37% of my electricity bill.      1500 MW of space has been assigned for  the new “Bruce Line”  – this was designed  to accommodate the designed nameplate capacity of the proposed wind projects in those areas,  which will be approx 1500MW – unfortunately the wind projects will probably never produce 1500MW and will average  somewhere between 350 to 400 MW  and most of this when not required. Because of the intermittent nature of wind energy, we have the enormous expense of building a line capable of transmitting 1500MW that will only average about 25-30% of it’s capacity — a huge waste of taxpayers money.

Ontario has brought more than 1,400 MW of renewable energy online since 2003, enough power for more than 400,000 homes.  

This statement ignores the difference between  capacity factor which is not an indication  of the value that wind energy is providing the grid. The true capacity value of wind is generally less than 10% of it’s nameplate capacity and often 0% or slightly above simply because,  at the time of peak electricity demand, wind isn’t blowing to allow generation. (Glenn R. Schleede,Electric Industry Terms Important in Understanding Two Critically Important Limitations of Electricity from Wind Energy). Note that  Wind turbines produce at or above their average rate around 40% of the time. Conversely, they produce little or no power around 60% of the time so in fact most of the time it is not providing its average power to its average number of homes. 

Therefore suggesting that 400,000 homes can be supplied is  misleading at best since when the wind isn’t blowing at the required velocity it’s not supplying at all.   Please remember that  residential use accounts for only a third of our total electricity and that  without  fossil fuel generation,  wind and solar could not exist since these are the sources needed to respond to fickle, intermittent, unreliable wind.  Hydro and Nuclear are designated as  baseload generation in Ontario and considering them anything else,  is essentially putting our grid at greater risk .  Pushing  wind energy  onto the grid, is simply adding another source of fluctuation that the grid must balance.

In 2003, there were only 15 megawatts of wind power generated by ten turbines. This is an 80-fold increase in wind power capacity, enough for more than 350,000 homes.  Ontario is Canada’s leader in wind and solar. 

Indicating that Ontario is Canada’s leader in wind  generation tells us nothing about whether wind is a viable solution to our energy needs. It only indicates that the wind industry along with you Mr. Hoy, have  been very clever promoters in pushing the right buttons that many people want to hear . Additionally, most people are not critical thinkers and do not see past the fact that the Wind industry is all about money. Without large government subsidies, the industry would not exist. As taxpayers funding this kind of folly for the next 20 years, what is our price to being bought? Is our quality of life for sale when by erecting these behemoths, production prime  agriculture lands will be substantially reduced, natural habitats will be desecrated, and the health and financial welfare of neighbours will be adversely affected? 

This statement alone indicates a complete lack of due diligence by this government.

 In 2009, more than 80 per cent of our generation came from emissions free sources.

This statement is in fact true, however you leave out the fact that the sources of this emission free generation comes from Hydro, and Nuclear which represent 75% of Ontario electrical generation capacity.  This statement, which leads the lay person to think this is coming from renewables like wind and solar, is misleading at best. Without wind and solar power,  Ontario is already a leader in clean energy – thanks to the decisions of governments  30-40 yrs ago.

Under the Feed-in Tariff program, the province has executed more than 900 contracts for new small and large clean energy projects, with a total capacity of more than 2,100 MW. 

Again the number of contracts the province has executed is not an indication of how effective wind energy is,  only that the generous subsidies provided through the FIT program has created a gold rush mentality with renewable proponents, eager to profit off the backs of the general Ontario taxpayer.   

Ontario is phasing out coal-fired generation by the end of 2014, the single-largest climate initiative in Canada.

Two studies in Germany projected that 48,000 MW of wind power will allow reducing conventional capacity by only 2,000 MW, a 4% capacity credit (as described in “Wind Report 2005,” Eon Netz). Your statement leads the non-critical thinker into believing that renewables can directly one for one, replace coal when in fact it cannot. According to Eon Netz, one of the four grid managers in Germany, with 7,050 MW of wind power capacity installed in its area at the end of 2004, the amount of back-up required was over 80%, which was the maximum output observed from all of their wind power facilities together. That is, for every 10 MW of wind power added to the system in this case, at least 8 MW of back-up power must also be dedicated.

In other words, wind needs 100% back-up of its maximum output.

Note also that the cost benefit analysis upon which your government is working, also does not take into consideration  the health/mortality risks of the alternatives after the coal plants are shut down. We can’t just turn off 25% of our power supply. If this McGuinty government is truly concerned about health, then he would scrap green energy policies that increase unemployment and triple the cost of electricity for families that are already having trouble making ends meet.   

In 2009, coal generation was down more than 70 per cent from 2003 levels, the lowest level in 45 years. By contrast, between 1995 and 2003 coal fired generation went up 127 per cent. 

Ontario is in energy surplus right now largely due to the financial fall out of 2008 which has in turn reduced the manufacturing sector.  I live in the Windsor area therefore see and hear daily how this has affected the automotive industry our economy and unemployment rate (the highest in the country)  The reason coal generation was so high in 2003 was the fact that our uninformed government had shutdown several nuclear units  -fortunately we had the coal generation  to fall back on – since then some of the nuclear units have or soon will be returned to service plus the above mentioned new gas plants reducing the need for lots of continuous coal generation. However it is worth noting that during the periods when the demand on the grid is higher than normal,  it is coal generation that the system falls back on  because unlike the futile wind and solar power coal generation, coal  is reliable and efficient and in Ontario’s case,  mostly clean.

Ontario earned an “A+” on the latest report card from the Canadian Energy Efficiency Alliance, up from a “C-” six years earlier.   

If Ontario electrical sector has improved in efficiencies, than why has this not translated to our electricity costs?  My last two electrical bills have gone up $135. A little different than the monthly projected $1.60/month your government  forecast ed.   And who may I ask,  constitutes the Canadian Energy Efficiency Alliance – how much of my taxes or electricity bill goes to pay for such an organization. 

Nearly 1 million consumers now have the power to manage their energy consumption better by shifting their energy use to off-peak hours and taking advantage of time-of-use pricing.

Again my electricity bill went up by $135, despite the fact that the majority of my electrical usage(65%) was during off peak hours.  Peak hours are doubled the rates.  This statement is an insult to the intelligence of the people of Ontario and imposes a huge penalty on the people most unable to pay the obvious extra cost.

The Ontario Energy and Property Tax Credit will provide $1.3 billion in support to Ontario families and individuals in 2010. 

Who is eventually paying for this?  My guess is the consumer through increased rates.  A classic case of robbing Peter to pay Paul despite they are brothers living under the same roof.

The Northern Ontario Energy Credit is a new, permanent energy credit to help families and individuals in the North who face higher energy costs.

Another case of robbing Peter to pay Paul

The Emergency Energy Fund provides funding to municipalities to support low-income Ontarian s facing energy-related emergencies.   

Again who is paying for this?

11 thoughts on “Response to McGuinty Liberals Dishonest “Script”

  1. So well-written and clear. I am so glad you have referred to “critical thinking” which is a casualty of the new “Green” religion.

    Thank-you.

  2. CEEA/REEP

    REEP/Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency Partnership

    MISSION OF REEP:
    “In removing barriers to the long term-transformation of the energy sector,and in creating an attractive investment environment”

    REEP projects concentrate on the following topics:
    1. Policy & Regulation
    2. Innovative financial mechanisims and business models.

    REMOVING BARRIERS to the transformation of the energy sector = CHANGING LAWS & REGULATIONS.

    Check out their website to find out who is behind REEP and who are the sponsors/donors. Just use Google search.

    Seems to me that this is outside interference in Ontario energy production.

  3. And just remember this chestnut when you consider the “drive for efficiency and green-ness”.

    http://www.edn.com/blog/Anablog/38986-Energy_Star_ratings_can_be_rigged.php

    Energy Star ratings can be rigged
    May 18, 2010

    “The GAO (government accountability office) has released a report that shows you can get an energy Star rating for your product for pretty much just asking for it. They got Energy Star ratings for a gas-powered alarm clock and a room cleaner that was a feather duster shoved into the grill of a space heater. Appliance Design magazine noted the scandal here, and they were asking for more accountability in the program way back in December 2009 with this editorial.”

    It was probably financed by REEEP… 😉

  4. Thanks Collette.

    I was struck by both the notation of the 80% figure for non-emitting sources, and by the references to coal reduction. It’s funny how wind production can be seen to meet 6% of Ontario demand (a couple of weeks ago, when it was all exported – as it always is), but nuclear and hydro combined are never noted as providing 87% of all Ontario consumption in 2009 – or over 92% of Ontario demand back in 1994.

    I’ve been looking at total production, by source, and Ontario consumption, back to 1990 (most of the figures are from either the 2004 GHG inventory report, or the IESO).

    Strikingly similar are 1994 and 2009:
    In 1994, Ontario produced 152.4 TWh to meet demand of 141.4TWh.
    In 2009, Ontario produced 149.2 TWh to meet demand of 139.0TWh.

    As I see it, throughout the 80’s, starting in Davis’ time, we played Hamlet on the generation file, in large part due to an inability to forecast demand. This caused the multiple stops and starts at Darlington. By 1989 we were large importers of electricity. As demand dropped with the recession in 1990, and Darlington came online, this totally reversed and by 1994 we were exporting 11TWh – a 22TWh reversal from 1990’s 11TWh of imports.
    And we were probably losing a lot of money on every TWh we exported, as we are now.
    This led to much hand-wringing about the subsidizing of electricity rates (especially by the proponents of privatization). In response, we started idling nuclear units.

    Trying to break out of the normal viewpoints, I group generation which cannot be matched to demand (primarily nuclear – and wind). In 1994, they combined to produce about 92.4 TWh, and about 84.8 TWh in 2009. In both cases, exports soared. If people would take off the propellor beanie, they’d see this deja vu moment for what it is – bad management of the supply mix.
    There is no green in inefficiency.
    For coal, we moved up from 1994’s 16.4TWh to a high of 42.4 in 2000 (37.5 in 2003), and then declined to 9.8 TWh in 2009. But combined with natural gas, the movement was from 21.8 in 1994, up to 55.3 in 2000 (nuclear/wind only 59.8), and down to 25TWh in 2009 (which is higher than 1994’s figure!). What was the benefit of ramping up the production of these fuels in the interim years?
    Well, in 2000 we exported .4TWh, in 2001 we imported .2 — using coal and gas allowed supply to be matched to demand.

    We’ve abandoned supply management, driven up the price, crippled the economy, for the second time in 25 years, and are still not perceptively closer to reducing GHG emissions from electricity production than we were 15 years ago.
    We are much closer to replacing nuclear generation with natural gas – and that is the only agenda which makes the actions of this government explicable.

    ———
    Enbridge and Union Gas are prominent private sector members of the CEEA.

  5. Collette, I have been in the industry for about 30 years and I can tell you that your comments are great! Don’t get lost in the weeds as some would have you do. The history and facts are way to complex to totally encompass and keep people interested. Keep this sort of thing up Collette and maybe, just maybe, enough people will listen. We must follow the KISS principle if we want to keep people interested.

  6. Kris Stevens from OSEA wrote portions of the Green Energy Act while in York University. This seems to be the centre for “Green Babys” that eventually end up inside the Provincially funded orgs that suck our $$$ out of our pockets through Trillium Foundation that gets our money from OLG , so everytime you buy a “scratch and win ticket”, visulaize that some of it pays to produce these individuals.

  7. Just imagine how much of ”the people’s” money could be spent providing government services
    to and for the people if much of it wasn’t squandered on fraudsters like OSEA, REEEP, CanWEA, car companies, interest paid on government loans to both foreign and domestic commercial banks, etc, etc?

    Imagine how strong our economy would be if “we the people” could spend 60% or more of our earned income the way we chose instead of the government stealing 60% of it from us to give to the aforementioned fraudsters for the “illusion” of generating economic activity?

    Isn’t that the way a “free market economy” is supposed to work?

    Ironically, there is one and ONLY one exception to this rule: ELECTRICITY!

    I have already posted the explanation as to why private generation and distribution of electricity
    can never lead to “energy at cost”. This can only exist if the “people” own and manage this system
    and that can only work in a true democracy, or true communism.

    Right now, I can’t think of a word to describe our current system of government except for “CORRUPT”

    Sean Holt.

Comments are closed.