Ontario’s Predictable Energy Disaster; Mortgaged To Falsified Climate Science. The Solution Is Readily Available.

by Dr. Tim Ball on August 2, 2013

in Government,Legal,Political,Politics,Theory

It occurred to me…” that eventually all those people texting will eventually end up writing Shakespeare’s plays.

The Province of Ontario is a classic example of the damage done by the false science of global warming and latterly climate change. The major response was to abandon traditional energy sources in favour of alternate energies and Ontario followed that path led by Maurice Strong, architect of the false science. It has been a disaster in every country or region around the world that took the same route. Fortunately, albeit sadly, those places are now examples of the solutions Ontario must pursue to get back on track.

Some major changes are required. First, understanding of how CO2 was targeted and demonized to underpin the push for alternate energies. Second acknowledge that CO2 is not a problem. Third, understand how and why alternate energies are completely inadequate replacements for fossil fuels. Fourth, do a proper cost/benefit analysis to show how alternate energies only appear to be competitive because of government subsidies. Fifth, establish a cost/benefit analysis for the sequence of rebuilding the entire energy structure.

Ontarian’s are paying for the green energy agendas created by Maurice Strong as former head of Ontario Hydro. David Suzuki and Dalton McGuinty pushed to continue Strong’s disastrous policies, which guarantees shortages and higher costs, unless completely new policies are adopted. It will take years to rebuild adequate facilities. Strong and Suzuki found willing politicians who refused to understand and chose to appear green at all cost. It’s wilful because of the clear evidence of false science and failure of similar policies in any place that pursued green energy. As always, it is the people, who they profess to protect who suffer and pay the bill.

Maurice Strong began Ontario Hydro’s problems when appointed Chairman by NDP Premier Bob Rae in 1992. A 1997 article title

“Maurice Strong: The new guy in your future”

says,

“Maurice Strong has demonstrated an uncanny ability to manipulate people, institutions, governments, and events to achieve the outcome he desires.”

It concludes,

“The fox has been given the assignment, and all the tools necessary, to repair the henhouse to his liking.”

This applied to his UN role, but also applied to his Ontario Hydro role.

One report says,

“Within no time of his arrival, he firmly redirected and re-structured Ontario Hydro. At the time, Ontario Hydro was hell-bent on building many more nuclear reactors, despite dropping demand and rising prices. Maurice Strong grabbed the Corporation by the scruff of the neck, reduced the workforce by one third, stopped the nuclear expansion plans, cut capital expenditures, froze the price of electricity, pushed for sustainable development, made business units more accountable.”

Sounded good, but it was a path to inadequate supply.

Key is the phrase he,

“pushed for sustainable development”.

In the same year, 1992, Strong, in the keynote speech at the Rio Earth Summit he organized, said:

“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, the use of fossil fuels, electrical appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.”

He’d already created mechanisms to eliminate fossil fuels and bring about reduction and destruction of western economies, including Ontario. It’s summarized in his speculation for the plot of a novel.

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

How do you cause civilizations to collapse? Why is CO2 the focus? It’s less than 4 percent of the greenhouse gases and ALL records show temperature increases before CO2, opposite to the fundamental assumption of the IPCC hypothesis. Strong did it through the IPCC using the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).

Fossil fuels drive the industrial economies and CO2 is a byproduct. Show it’s causing irreparable climate damage and you can demand alternative energy replacements. Strong achieved this with the IPCC and at Ontario Hydro. He used the narrow definition of climate change created by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), as only human caused changes. Trouble is this is impossible if you don’t know the amount and cause of natural change.

IPCC created the science to prove human CO2 was the problem and the politics to claim failure to act guarantees catastrophe. Strong controlled who participated through the bureaucracies of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). An Assistant Deputy Minister of Environment Canada (EC), who subsequently controlled most Canadian climate research funding, chaired the IPCC formation meeting in 1985. As Richard Lindzen explained,

“IPCC’s emphasis, however, isn’t on getting qualified scientists, but on getting representatives from over 100 countries”.

Using Weather Departments gave bureaucrats ascendancy over politicians as the Canadian situation proves.

The IPCC Summary for Policymakers (SPM) was designed to deceive. It differs greatly from the Science Report and is deliberately released months earlier. David Wojick, IPCC expert reviewer explained,

“What is systematically omitted from the SPM are precisely the uncertainties and positive counter evidence that might negate the human interference theory. Instead of assessing these objections, the Summary confidently asserts just those findings that support its case. In short, this is advocacy, not assessment.”

Focus on CO2 and the assumption an increase causes temperature increase are built into the computer models. William Kinninmonth, former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre explains,

“… current climate modeling is essentially to answer one question: how will increased atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (generated from human activity) change earth’s temperature and other climatological statistics?”….

“It is heroic to assume that such a view is sufficient basis on which to predict future ‘climate’.”

Indian Union Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh said

“science is politics in climate change; climate science is politics” and we are being “led by our noses by Western (climate) scientists who have less of a scientific agenda and more of a political agenda”.

The Canadian and Ontario governments should listen.

CO2 is not causing warming or climate change, which means there is no scientific need to replace fossil fuels. Replacing them with alternative energies compounds the problems.

A US Senate report notes, “Comparisons of wind, solar, nuclear, natural gas and coal sources of power coming on line by 2015 show that solar power will be 173% more expensive per unit of energy delivered than traditional coal power, 140% more than nuclear power and natural gas and 92% more expensive than wind power. Wind power is 42% more expensive than nuclear and natural gas power.” “Wind and solar’s “capacity factor” or availability to supply power is around 33%, which means 67% of the time wind and solar cannot supply power and must be supplemented by a traditional energy source such as nuclear, natural gas or coal.

Just a couple of examples to illustrate the problem in other countries. A July 16 Reuter’s headline says,

“German operators of coal and gas power plants are sounding the alarm: the operation of many power plants is no longer profitable as a result of the green energy transition.”

In a July 13 UK headline we learn

“Thousands of dirty diesel generators are being secretly prepared all over Britain to provide emergency back-up to prevent the National Grid collapsing when wind power fails. And under the hugely costly scheme, the National Grid is set to pay up to 12 times the normal wholesale market rate for the electricity they generate.”

The result is encapsulated in a July 17 UK headline

“GOING green could see power bills go through the stratosphere – and many families go into the red.”

There are many other problems alternate energies too many to list here, but consider the following for Ontario. Wind turbulence restricts the number of turbines to 5 to 8 turbines per 2.6 square kilometres. With average wind speeds of 24 kph it needs 8,500 turbines covering 2590 square kilometres to produce the power of a 1000 MW conventional station. To put this in perspective Ontario closed two 1000MW plants in 2011 – the Lambton and the Nanticoke coal fired plants. Besides the land, you still need coal-fired plants running at almost 100 percent for back up. Richard Courtney provides a good overview of the limitations of wind power.

Promoting energy policies based on falsified science and alternative energies that don’t work is unacceptable. It is incredible that anyone would continue to promote them when they’ve been tried and already failed everywhere. The people are already paying the price.

Several countries are already switching gears as they realize they must act. In most cases they are doing this without conceding that CO2 is not a problem. Here is a brief summary of the issues to consider in moving forward with energy adequacy in Ontario.

Simple cost/benefit analysis for ‘traditional’ energy facilities;

Ontario should move quickly to shore up energy shortfalls. The quickest and cheapest way is to build clean burning coal plants. They are more expensive to operate in the long term because of the need for constant coal supply. However, with the closing of coal plants in the US the supply will be cheap and readily available. The US has also already developed the clean burning technology, such as plants in North Dakota.

Ontario is rich in shale oil and must develop this potential.

“Crude oil and gas in Ontario has been discovered in commercial quantities in a total of over 300 different pools.” and “Despite this long history of drilling and production history there has been little activity in Ontario targeted at shale oil and gas drilling and production.”

Money currently going to subsidize alternate energies should be directed to development of these resources. This is a good option because the infrastructure is already in place and only needs expanding and upgrading.

Hydroelectric plants are expensive to construct, but much cheaper to operate in the long term. Ontario must develop some of their potential sites, such as those created by the fall of water into Hudson Bay. Manitoba has already developed a great deal of power this way. Part of that potential was scheduled to include running a power line from Manitoba into northwest Ontario, a project that should be rehabilitated. The limitation with hydro and other power sources like tidal is their distance from the market. There is a limit to the distance electricity can be transmitted. Manitoba partially resolved this problem by adopting the Russian system of reducing line loss by converting Alternating Current (AC) to Direct Current (DC), transmitting as DC then reconverting to AC at the point of need.

The province has a long and checkered history of developing and using nuclear power. The cost of building such facilities is high and slow partly because of the concerns about safety. Canada was also hampered by government involvement with the CANDU reactor. The limitations this system placed on advancing nuclear power are well documented. It prevented adoption of better technologies developed elsewhere. The other issue over the years has been the problem of disposing of nuclear waste. Studies at Pinawa in northwest Ontario were done years ago with a view to burying waste in the Canadian Shield. That is still a viable option, in fact more so today, because new systems, such as the pebble bed reactors produce considerably less waste. Nuclear is clearly a long term solution. Once built they run efficiently and safely close to where the power is needed.

Implementation of all these types of energy production will allow Ontario to deal with short term requirements and then prepare for long terms. It is criminal in a country like Canada, with more energy resources to hand than virtually any other country in the world, to have even the threat of inadequate supplies. Despite this the tragedy of using climate for a political agenda has created just such a situation. It is time to confront the eco-bullying with facts and sensible actions. As Michael Crichton said in remarks to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco on September 15, 2003,

“Because in the end, science offers us the only way out of politics. And if we allow science to become politicized, then we are lost. We will enter the Internet version of the dark ages, an era of shifting fears and wild prejudices, transmitted to people who don’t know any better. That’s not a good future for the human race. That’s our past. So it’s time to abandon the religion of environmentalism, and return to the science of environmentalism, and base our public policy decisions firmly on that.”