Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Green Subsidies and Grants in Canada - $3.6B to Big Oil CCS; $10B to Samsung Wind
12-06-2009, 07:27 AM,
Green Subsidies and Grants in Canada - $3.6B to Big Oil CCS; $10B to Samsung Wind
Just following the money for that is being robbed from us and seeing where it is ending up as a result of the carbon dioxide -> climate fraud.

Here is the summary from my neck of the woods:
Premier Ed Stelmach and Energy Minister Mel Knight announced grants to Swan Hills Synfuels, for a $1.5 B in situ coal gasification project using up the rest of the $2B Alberta fund. $495 M fund construction of a 240-kilometre pipeline for collecting and storing CO2. Ottawa is funding $865 M for the Shell Quest project, and $774 M for TransAlta CCS.
Full Story:

I have written to the government plenty about this and they were fending me off with 'We are following the IPCC recommendations'. Since climategate exposed more of the collusion. Now they have changed their tune slightly to fend off the 'deniers'.

Quote from the last email I received (Thursday, December 03, 2009 9:18 AM):
Quote:Regardless of the resulting impacts of climate change, our climate change strategy is designed to have multiple benefits. For example, the reduction of air emissions will help improve air quality in the province. By becoming more efficient, Alberta industries become more competitive in an increasingly challenging global marketplace. Efficiency and conservation help conserve natural resources and lower costs for consumers and industry. The development of technology to reduce emissions is increasingly sought throughout the world and Alberta companies are poised to take advantage of these opportunities.

As far as the Carbon Tax Treaty Canada's stance is that of a follower with our Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, deferring the decision to the USA saying that he'll do whatever Obama decides. This after being a strong opponent of global energy tax saying it would ruin the Canadian economy. Experts agree that Canada would suffer the most if they signed being both a developed and largely a resource based economy and a few rounds of upgrades have already been put into action making our industry relatively clean and effiicient. Nice to know Canada has been relegated to a puppet of a puppet.

[Image: r341765_1556060.jpg]
There are no others, there is only us.
12-06-2009, 01:48 PM,
RE: Canada CCS and Clean Coal Projects in Alberta Receive $3.6 B
Thanks for the update on this FT, I best send Eddie an email on this subject today.
An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.
Mohandas Gandhi

Each of us is put here in this time and this place to personally decide the future of humankind.
Did you think you were put here for something less?
Chief Arvol Looking Horse
01-23-2010, 08:30 PM,
RE: Green Subsidies and Grants in Canada - $3.6B to Big Oil CCS; $10B to Samsung Wind
They did it again... more crony capitalism.

Quote:Terence Corcoran: Ontario puts $10B in the wind
January 22, 2010, 9:26 PM
by NP Editor Terence Corcoran

When government and industry talk about green energy, what they mean by green is the green stuff that will be going into the pockets of special corporate and government interests.

In a dramatic move yesterday, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty struck a green electricity deal -- allegedly the biggest of its kind in the world -- that will transmit a subsidy worth as much as $10-billion into the hands of a Korean state enterprise and corporate giant Samsung.

Photo: Energy minister Brad Duguid, second from right, with representatives from Samsung Thursday. (Reuters)

Green economics is a wonderful thing, except for consumers.

The subsidy means that over the next 25 years Ontario electricity users will pay 50% more for the wind and solar electricity produced under the Samsung deal than they would buying the same power from conventional sources. In return for the subsidy, the only thing the average consumer will receive is a warm and fuzzy feeling for having saved the planet from global warming.

Never mind that global warming may not be happening. Electricity consumers everywhere, but especially in Ontario, are often merely cash machines for scheming profiteers and politicians. Any excuse will do. If not global warming there's always job creation, trade wars, subsidies, economic nationalism, local content rules, renewability claims -- and the usual ugly business of buying voters with their own money.

The McGuinty electricity scheme masterfully incorporates all of the above. At the signing ceremony with Korean officials for a 25-year agreement to supply 2,500 megawatts of wind and solar power, the Premier practically declared a green energy war on the United States. "Samsung approached us in the first instance," he said. "The reason that Samsung and Korea Electric Power are making this investment in Ontario -- and not New York or Michigan or Texas or California -- is because of Ontario's Green Energy Act."

Ontario's Green Energy Act, said the Premier, is the "best of its kind, best in class, in North America." By that he means, it offers the biggest giveaways, the fattest subsidies and the most generous guarantees. To hell with good economics, open markets and competition. Using dictatorship-style powers, the McGuinty government can order its subsidiary agencies -- power authorities, distribution companies and regulators -- to set rates and build power lines. All the Samsungs of the world have to do is show up and receive Ontario's Feed-in Tariffs -- guaranteed above-market power rates of 13.5¢ a kilowatt hour for wind and 44.3¢ for solar power.

But even the Feed-in Tariff scheme, cooked up by former Energy Minister George Smitherman, wasn't good enough for Samsung, which will also receive another 1¢ a kWh as an extra subsidy in return for building four wind and solar manufacturing plants in Ontario. The plants, to manufacture towers and blades for windmills and inverters and modules for solar-power facilities, will allegedly create 16,000 jobs as part of Ontario's new "green energy cluster."

Over the 25-year course of the Samsung-Korea agreement, the cumulative cost of the little 1¢ add-on will be worth about $1-billion, or -- as the government put it -- $437-million in net-present-value terms. The implication was that Ontario would be getting 16,000 new jobs at a cost of only $437-million, equal to only $1.60 per year to the average Ontario electricity consumer.

What the government failed to mention is that the actual measure of the subsidy should begin with the Feed-in Tariff rates, which are worth billions more. The trick to the Samsung deal is that the Korean operators received a government guarantee -- an "assurance of transmission" -- for the 2,500 megawatts of power they build at Feed-in Tariff rates of 13.5¢ a kWh for wind and 44.3¢ for solar. The 1¢ bonus subsidy raises the guaranteed price of electricity to be paid to Samsung-Korea to 14.5¢ for wind and 45.3¢ for solar.

Over 25 years, the government says the Koreans will deliver 110-million megawatt hours at these guaranteed prices, equal to 110-billion kWh. Based on operating assumptions for the wind-solar balance, that means the Koreans will receive about a guaranteed $25-billion from Ontario electricity consumers at an average price of maybe 23¢ per kWh. But the current price for new gas-fired power, with all costs accounted for, is maybe 12¢ or about $13-billion. Ontario, in other words, will pay about $10-billion or maybe even $12-billion in subsidy to the Korean consortium over 25 years, equal to about $4-billion in net present value.

The Samsung agreement will also squeeze out other wind and solar power producers from the market, thus eliminating competition and fairness from a power market already grotesquely distorted by the Green Energy Act and the Feed-in Tariff scheme. So not only will the McGuinty energy regime plunder cash from electricity consumers, it will compound the economic mess by squeezing other energy producers.

That's green energy in action: subsidies, distortion, trade battles, fake job creation and back-room political deals.

Utilities are getting outrageous. Mostly the fees. My water bill was over $200 (CDN) this month and it's winter (no watering of the lawn, plants atm) compared to less than 1/3 that same time last year?! Gas is $150, Electricity $120, land line + internet $100 for a single story house. It all adds up to quite a bit and then there's another $180 in property taxes for snow removal, road repair, waste and sewage. So before any other expense $750 CAD ($710 USD, 500 EUR, 440 GBP) is gone straight off before transport, food, rent/mortgage and taxes which I can tell you is not cheap either with two boys.

.. and now they want 50%+ more from Ontarians in electricity fees to give to Samsung in Korea so we can be green. Going too far happened along time ago but this is ludicrous. A full time minimum wage job (after taxes and deductions) wouldn't even cover those utility costs.
There are no others, there is only us.
01-24-2010, 08:20 PM,
RE: Green Subsidies and Grants in Canada - $3.6B to Big Oil CCS; $10B to Samsung Wind
I hear you, let us not forget that any money Samsung invests in Canada will be conjured into existence for them by our five big banks who are experts at making something out of nothing.
An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.
Mohandas Gandhi

Each of us is put here in this time and this place to personally decide the future of humankind.
Did you think you were put here for something less?
Chief Arvol Looking Horse
01-26-2010, 03:22 PM,
RE: Green Subsidies and Grants in Canada - $3.6B to Big Oil CCS; $10B to Samsung Wind
Seems the Brits are figuring out they are being scammed on wind farms and green energy too after their noticed wallets were feeling lighter, 1 billion pounds lighter.

Quote:Wind farm subsidies top £1 billion a year
Britain's energy policy faces new controversy as it can be revealed that electricity customers are paying more than £1 billion a year to subsidise windfarms and other forms of renewable energy.
By Ben Leach and Richard Gray
Published: 8:45PM GMT 23 Jan 2010

Next month's annual report from Ofgem, the energy regulator, will show that it has risen above £1 billion for the first time, according to analysts at the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF), a green energy think-tank.

It means that renewable energy added an an estimated £13.50 to the average household electricity bill last year. An additional burden fell on industrial users of electricity, who in turn passed on costs to their customers.

Critics claimed that the subsidy scheme unfairly penalised consumers and was being used to fund "unrealistic" plans to increase the use of wind power.

Countryside campaigners have expressed concerns at the number of wind farms being built around the country, as the Government tries to meet its target that 30 per cent of the UK's energy should be generated from renewable sources by 2020.

The Ofgem report will show that over the past three years the subsidies have added a total of £32.50 to the average household's electricity bills. The annual cost has steadily risen from £7 in 2007 to £13.50 in 2009.

The proceeds of the levy, known as the Renewables Obligation (RO), are divided between the main renewable energy sources, with wind receiving 40 per cent, landfill gas 25 per cent, biomass 20 per cent, hydroelectric 12 per cent and sewage gas 3 per cent.

Dr John Constable, director of policy and research at the REF, said: "The fundamental problem with the RO is that the cost to the consumer is extremely high.

"Since the cost of the scheme is passed onto businesses as well as households, there will also be a significant impact on the economy.

"The Government's plans for wind are wildly unrealistic. Wind power is going to be very expensive, very difficult and ultimately very costly."

The cost to consumers of the RO scheme has risen from £278 million in 2002/3 to £1.04 billion last year, the Ofgem report is expected to say - a total of £4.4 billion over seven years.

The scheme works by requiring energy suppliers to obtain a set percentage of the electricity they provide to consumers from renewable sources. In 2008/9 this figure was 9.1 per cent, compared to 7.9 per cent in 2007/8.

For each megawatt hour of renewable energy bought by a supplier from a generator, suppliers must also buy a certificate as proof.

If suppliers fail to meet their obligation by presenting enough certificates, they must pay a fine known as a "buy-out". The cost to energy suppliers is passed on to consumers through their bills.

Ofgem predicts that the total cost of the RO to consumers between 2002 and 2027, when the scheme is set to end, will amount to £32 billion. By 2020 it is estimated that the annual cost will be running at over £5 billion.

Prof Ian Fells, emeritus professor of energy conversion at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne, said money that was being invested into wind farms through the RO scheme needed to be diverted elsewhere.

He said: "Consumers simply don't realise the cost to them of supporting the renewable energy industry. Not only is there a cost to consumers but there is a cost to businesses as well.

"So people will not only see the huge cost of the RO scheme in their household bills but also on the High Street, as they see shops put up prices to meet the rising cost of electricity.

"Subsidising wind farms is far too expensive, and the money could be better spent by investing in other forms of power."

A spokeswoman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change said: "To ensure we meet our climate change goals we need a massive increase in low carbon energy and that includes renewables.

"The RO is helping that expansion happen with the amount of electricity generated from renewables trebling since 2002.

"We also need to make sure we have continued secure energy supplies in the future and renewables are part of that too. There's no high-carbon low-price alternative – we must move to low-carbon sources."

There are currently 270 wind farms with 2,775 turbines in operation, with plans for a further 10,000 on and around Britain's shores.

It has raised concerns in communities that hundreds of acres of rural landscapes will have wind farms built on them.

Last week The Sunday Telegraph revealed how 14 of the UK's officially-designated beauty spots could soon be blighted by turbines, which can reach more than 400ft in height.
There are no others, there is only us.
04-13-2010, 08:50 AM,
RE: Green Subsidies and Grants in Canada - $3.6B to Big Oil CCS; $10B to Samsung Wind
Ontario already made this mistake with the wind power fiasco that was a total disaster both in terms of production and cost. This and everything cited above is the carbon tax rolling out step by step.

Quote:Welcome to the wacky world of green power
Margaret Wente
Published on Saturday, Apr. 10, 2010 5:00AM EDT

Lots of folks are thrilled by Ontario’s big new investment in clean energy. Among them is Jim Creeggan, who plays bass guitar for the Barenaked Ladies. That’s because the government is going to pay him to put solar panels on his roof. “It’s a thrill to be able to power my own lights while, at the same time, contributing to my city’s electrical needs,” he enthuses. “I’m glad solar power is getting out of the fringe and into the mainstream.”

Should the rest of us be enthused? Maybe not. In solar terms, Toronto is not exactly Southern California. Even there, nobody has figured out how to make solar power cheap. The government will pay Mr. Creeggan and other solar producers around 80 cents a kilowatt hour for the power they sell back to the grid. That’s about 15 times more than the current spot price that consumers now pay for power. The difference will eventually show up on their electricity bills.

Welcome to the wacky world of green power, where misguided governments have sparked a massive corporate feeding frenzy (at taxpayers’ expense) to achieve little or nothing of any social benefit. This week, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty announced $8-billion more in green investments, on top of the $7-billion he announced a short while ago. He’s determined to outspend B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell, who also wants to be the king of green. The heart of their strategy is to pay massive subsidies to wind, solar and other renewable energy producers – many of them large multinational corporations – for the next 20 years.

Some people think this is a terrible idea. One of them is George Monbiot, the environmental firebrand in Britain, which has just introduced its own subsidy scheme. “The feed-in tariffs [the rates paid to power generators such as Mr. Creeggan] about to be introduced here are extortionate, useless and deeply regressive,” he fumed. “The technologies the scheme will reward are comically inefficient.”

Michael Trebilcock, a professor of law and economics at the University of Toronto, figures that the cost of renewables will average out at two to three times the cost of conventional power. Large wind producers, for example, will get 13.5 cents a kWh (and small producers will get more). These costs will be fed through to industrial, commercial and residential consumers through additional charges on their electricity bills. There will be additional costs to extend the transmission grid.

And that means consumers are about to get a nasty shock. Ontario’s Energy Minister said soothingly this week that the green scheme will add only a few dollars a year to people’s hydro bills. But energy costs were already set to spike by 25 per cent, and energy experts say households will soon be paying several hundred dollars more a year. “The government is sitting on a political time bomb,” says Peter Murphy, a Toronto energy lawyer.

Green-energy advocates say the extra cost is worth it. Renewable energy will reduce our use of fossil fuels, cut down on greenhouse-gas emissions, and bolster the economy by kicking off a new era of green jobs.

Don’t bet your solar panel on it. Renewables simply can’t produce the large volumes of reliable energy that our economy needs. “These energy sources are so intermittent and unreliable that you have to have backup power at all times,” says Prof. Trebilcock. For every wind farm we build, we’ll have to have a coal or gas-fired power station waiting in the wings to take over when it’s 20 below. “I think we’ll get next to nothing on carbon dioxide abatement,” he says.

Mr. Monbiot agrees. Germany, he says, has spent €1.2-billion on solar roofs. Their total contribution to the country’s electricity supply was 0.4 per cent. Their total contribution to carbon savings is zero.

But what about green jobs? The McGuinty government confidently predicts that its green scheme will create 50,000 of them. Don’t believe it. Some will be temporary construction jobs. Some other jobs will disappear because higher electricity costs will make Ontario less competitive. And many of the new jobs will be extremely costly to create. In Denmark, the wind-power darling of the world, subsidies per net job created have amounted to $90,000 to $149,000 a year, according to one independent study. In Germany, job subsidies have cost as much as $249,000 a year.

So who are the winners? The companies that harvest the subsidies. They’re flocking to Ontario like fruit flies to a bowl of overripe peaches. The government is trying to create a feel-good story by showcasing the little guys – such as schools that want to install solar roofs, and native-run wind companies with names such as Mother Earth (despite the fact that little guys are the most inefficient operators of all). But it’s the big guys who are the biggest winners – multinational corporations such as the Korean giant Samsung, with which Mr. McGuinty struck a $7-billion deal, and Brookfield Renewable Power, which plans to generate more power than all the little guys put together.

The world is littered with cautionary tales about subsidized renewables and overblown promises. Spain went wild on solar, and set off a speculative boom. Inefficient, poorly designed plants popped up everywhere. The lavish subsidies inflated costs. When Spain plunged into recession, the subsidies were ratcheted back, and the industry collapsed.

Wind economics are shaky, too. In Britain, “too many developments are underperforming,” says Michael Jefferson, an expert on energy sustainability and economics. Wind developers, he says, have grossly exaggerated wind potential. “The subsidies make it viable for developers to put turbines on sites they would not touch if the money was not available.” As The Times of London notes, even environmentalists admit that some of Britain’s treasured landscapes may have been blighted for only small gains in green energy.

None of this has deterred Mr. McGuinty, who campaigned on the promise of shutting down Ontario’s coal-fired generating plants. Many in his own party now wonder how wise this was. His Green Energy Plan was rammed through by tough guy George Smitherman, who decamped to run for mayor of Toronto long before any chickens come home to roost.

Does this mean there’s nothing we can do to cut down on fossil fuel emissions? Not at all. Ontario has an abundant supply of clean energy that hasn’t yet been tapped – hydro. “There’s enough northern Canadian hydro power to satisfy Ontario’s needs for decades,” says Prof. Trebilcock. Ontario could impose a carbon tax, and invest the money in research to find ways of making green power less expensive. There’s also conservation – more retrofitting and smart metering.

But those are boring. Wind turbines and solar panels offer better photo ops.

“The solar panel is the ideal modern status symbol, which signifies both wealth and superiority, even if it’s perfectly useless,” writes Mr. Monbiot. “Seldom has there been a bigger public rip-off.”
There are no others, there is only us.
04-26-2010, 08:23 AM,
RE: Green Subsidies and Grants in Canada - $3.6B to Big Oil CCS; $10B to Samsung Wind
and the plans roll on despite further manipulation of climate reports discovered as well as no significant warming trend, way off IPCC predictions.

Quote:Canada rolls out carbon dioxide capture unit
Mon Apr 19, 4:18 pm ET

OTTAWA (AFP) – Canada's natural resources ministry on Monday launched the first mobile carbon dioxide capture and compressor unit to measure and analyze power plants' emissions.

The CanCO2's tangled metal pipes and gauges tucked inside a semi-trailer can remove pollutants from a sampling of fossil fuel-fired plants' emissions while purifying and compressing carbon dioxide for transport, storage or use.

The data generated in field tests may then be used to scale up the technology.

"The science is ready to roll out but we have to demonstrate it to bolster confidence in it before industry invests heavily in it," Kourosh Zanganeh, leader of the ministry's Zero-Emission Technologies Group, told AFP.

"By generating data, we can address some of the unknowns about carbon capture and storage still concerning people," such as costs, what kinds of gases can be processed and how best to process them, he said.

The group is currently negotiating with two companies looking to scale up the technology that Natural Resources Minister Christian Paradis said would help Ottawa meet its "commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent by 2020."

Others have also expressed interest in trials, said Geoff Murphy, director of the ministry's business office, responsible for commercializing its technologies.

The new technology is also suitable for separating carbon dioxide generated by oxy-fuel (burning of fuel and pure oxygen) power plants.

Two other currently available technologies require the use of solvents to separate the CO2, which must then be "cleansed" of the solvents, Zanganeh explained.

The purity of carbon dioxide is key to avoiding contamination of the ground where it will be stored.

SaskPower in western Canada is to decide this year whether to build the nation's first oxy-fuel power plant.

Saskatchewan province launched the first commercial carbon capture and storage in Weyburn in 2000, injecting liquid CO2 into depleted oil reservoirs to squeeze out their last drops of oil.

Still the world's largest CO2 capture and storage facility, it demonstrated that carbon dioxide can be stored underground safely and potentially indefinitely.
There are no others, there is only us.

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
Information New Immigration Stream – No Job Offer Needed in Canada FastTadpole 2 392 03-22-2014, 12:23 PM
Last Post: FastTadpole
Exclamation Canada and US Border, Security, Military, Trade and Law Integration FastTadpole 6 2,275 03-09-2013, 07:38 PM
Last Post: FastTadpole
  The wrong kind of GREEN Watchdog 2 434 02-02-2013, 12:08 AM
Last Post: Watchdog
  Bill C-38 protest has 13,000 websites going dark across Canada this June icosaface 2 581 05-30-2012, 05:51 PM
Last Post: operatorkos
  Canada's SOPA, Bill C11 icosaface 3 966 03-06-2012, 07:47 PM
Last Post: FastTadpole
  CANADA: Tax Cuts, Privatization and Deregulation: icosaface 0 420 01-20-2012, 05:45 PM
Last Post: icosaface
Information Bill C-428: Canada's Old Age Security Act Amendments FastTadpole 10 4,031 10-05-2011, 01:48 PM
Last Post: icosaface
  Libya / Incredible media lies - BBC shows "Green Square" in INDIA drummer 3 1,007 09-27-2011, 01:38 AM
Last Post: Bull Medicine
Information GE Decides to Dump Offshore Wind-Power Plans Despite Collecting Millions in Stimulus FastTadpole 4 924 09-13-2011, 04:12 AM
Last Post: thokling
Information BC Canada Slams Door on Harmonised Sales Tax (HST) via Referendum FastTadpole 0 473 08-31-2011, 03:39 AM
Last Post: FastTadpole

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)