Ontario announces plan to destroy its economy

[?Impact]

1 minute ago, TimG said:

Most people live in urban centers. If someone is claiming health benefits the only way the number could add up to a significant number is if one claims these benefits acrue to urban dwellers.

Nobody making the claims has focused only on urban dwellers, and there have been significant reductions across the country. Yes urban areas have much higher concentrations of pollution because there are so many concentrated sources. Coal plants have tall smokestacks and distribute their pollution across a broad expanse, and closing them has made a big difference. You are right that in urban areas we need to focus on many other sources as well. Montreal for example had a major initiative over the past few years in reducing/eliminating wood use in residences. Years ago when I did live in Toronto proper, I burned wood in a very inefficient fireplace so I was a contributor to local pollution. Vehicle emissions in urban centres are a significant contributor to local pollution, as are other internal combustion engines.

If we followed the lead of doing nothing because there are other problems, we would be living in cities with open sewers and no treatment.

[TimG]

32 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

If we followed the lead of doing nothing because there are other problems, we would be living in cities with open sewers and no treatment.

You can also do very dumb things if you don't get your priorities right. For example, modern clean coal plants have almost zero particulate matter but these are unacceptable for the CO2 obsessed. The only reason to close coal plants is if alternatives like Natural Gas are more cost effective. Closing coal plant not matter what the cost of alternatives is dumb policy.

[?Impact]

16 minutes ago, TimG said:

You can also do very dumb things if you don't get your priorities right.

Can you name one advantage of coal plants?

b.t.w., according to the EIA of the 4 major power sources (coal, gas, nuclear, and hydro) the most expensive is currently coal. For several years gas was much more expensive, but lower fuel costs in recent years brought it under coal.

[Argus]

3 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Let's see, Mckittrick and the Fraser Institute yet again prove that they are biased and will tell anything but the real story to somehow sell their agenda. Did you see the part about totally, 100% ignoring GHG? Did you see that part about talking about particulate matter in urban areas when the coal fire plants were elsewhere? This is not a study, it is a propaganda piece with zero basis in reality.

Did you see the part where he completely acknowledged that he wasn't talking about GHG? Did you see the part where he was commenting specifically to the Liberals' claim about it reducing air pollution and thus saving billions in health care costs? Apparently not. Maybe you should try reading it again.

[?Impact]

10 minutes ago, Argus said:

Did you see the part where he was commenting specifically to the Liberals' claim about it reducing air pollution and thus saving billions in health care costs?

I didn't see him provide any actual reference, just hearsay. From what I can find the paper written in 2005 by DSS management consultants in section 10.4 on page 44 is where the $3 billion figure is misquoted from. If Mckittrick et. al had any credibility, they would take this report and actually look at what happened 10 years laters instead of the junk they wrote.

[TimG]

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

Can you name one advantage of coal plants?

b.t.w., according to the EIA of the 4 major power sources (coal, gas, nuclear, and hydro) the most expensive is currently coal. For several years gas was much more expensive, but lower fuel costs in recent years brought it under coal.

Coal plants, unlike hydro, can be built anywhere and the infrastructure needed to transport the fuel is much cheaper than natural gas. They are cheaper than nuclear when you do a calculation based on real costs instead of the fictitious numbers the EIA uses (the EIA includes a "social cost of carbon"). Natural gas has only recently gotten cheap and plentiful enough to displace coal in locations where natural gas in available, however, the transport costs associated with natural has means natural gas is not available everywhere. In short, coal is the "default" power source that can deliver power to anyone, anywhere at a reasonable cost. In locations where other options are cheaper it should not be used but that I why I say the decision should be made on a case by case basis on economics rather than globally based on ideology.

Edited January 18, 2017 by TimG

[?Impact]

2 minutes ago, TimG said:

They are cheaper than nuclear when you do a calculation based on real costs instead of the fictitious numbers the EIA uses (the EIA includes a "social cost of carbon"). 

Wrong, the EIA is using real numbers from operating plants over the past 15 years. Hydro has always been the lowest cost, nuclear second. Coal was cheaper than gas until the cost of gas came down. There are not fiction social cost of carbon built into the numbers, they are the real costs - period. I suggest you actually look up the data. 

There are other numbers associated with building new plants, and yes you might say there are other factors built into them but the operating costs I cited above are 100% real - period.

[TimG]

14 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Wrong, the EIA is using real numbers from operating plants over the past 15 years. Hydro has always been the lowest cost, nuclear second. Coal was cheaper than gas until the cost of gas came down. There are not fiction social cost of carbon built into the numbers, they are the real costs - period. I suggest you actually look up the data. 

Give me a link to the numbers you are using so I can check what is included and what is not. Based on the ranking it sounds like they did not include the capital costs which means the rankings are meaningless.

Edited January 18, 2017 by TimG

[?Impact]

21 minutes ago, TimG said:

Give me a link to the numbers you are using 

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_04.html

[TimG]

1 minute ago, ?Impact said:

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_04.html

As I suspected. They don't include capital costs which means they are not useful when comparing power sources. 

[?Impact]

35 minutes ago, TimG said:

As I suspected. They don't include capital costs which means they are not useful when comparing power sources. 

Gas power plants are cheaper to build than coal.

[H10]

How can shutting down huge coal plants not reduce pollution?

[TimG]

16 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Gas power plants are cheaper to build than coal.

Yes which is great when the natural gas infrastructure is available. If there is no cheap natural gas supply coal is often the only viable alternative. So if Wynne said that NG will replace coal over time because of the lower costs then that would be a rational argument subject to review as energy prices change. She did not. She simply shutdown the coal plants before the end of the useful life and used particulate pollution as the justification which was a false argument.

[?Impact]

8 minutes ago, TimG said:

She simply shutdown the coal plants before the end of the useful life and used particulate pollution as the justification which was a false argument.

Actually Wynne did not shut down a single coal plant, and neither did McGuinty. The bulk of them were shut down by Ernie Eves, although I do give credit to Mike Harris for Lakeshore (one of the single good things he did).

[Ash74]

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

Actually Wynne did not shut down a single coal plant, and neither did McGuinty. The bulk of them were shut down by Ernie Eves, although I do give credit to Mike Harris for Lakeshore (one of the single good things he did).

I liked the tax cuts. 

I got to spend my own money on silly things like food and clothes and a ridiculous amount of booze. 

[cannuck]

On 1/18/2017 at 4:34 PM, ?Impact said:

Wrong, the EIA is using real numbers from operating plants over the past 15 years. Hydro has always been the lowest cost, nuclear second. Coal was cheaper than gas until the cost of gas came down. There are not fiction social cost of carbon built into the numbers, they are the real costs - period. I suggest you actually look up the data. 

There are other numbers associated with building new plants, and yes you might say there are other factors built into them but the operating costs I cited above are 100% real - period.

Not trying to obfuscate, but the devil is in the details.  Yes, nuclear OPERATING costs, are as you mentioned, almost down to hydro levels.  BUT:  one should compare the whole life cycle cost of each energy system to get a real picture.   For instance, coal is pretty cheap to build and operate, but if you do it to decent emissions standards, you will find that building full scale clean coal technology (as has been done only in one place on the planet - Saskpower Boundary dam) has capital costs greater than a nuke.  BUT, when you take the whole cycle of decommissioning and waste management into account, nuclear is far more expensive.  Not sure how to assess hydro, as it should be something you can simply replace the hardware with and keep operating - but if you had to restore the land it would be a very different story.  Natural gas is really the cheapest overall with today's fuel costs, as the plants are very compact and easily decommissioned - also wellsite remediation is pretty easy to do.

[Thinkinoutsidethebox]

Does Ontario build their own wind generators, solar panels, batteries and such?

Why or why not?

[ZenOps]

Natural gas power plants are getting a huge boost from technology improvements.

Every natural gas power plant made before year 2000 runs at about 32% efficiency, by 2012 North America was at 44% efficiency, the ultimate goal is around 54% to 60% efficiency.

Coal power plants have actually become slightly less efficient since year 2000 to meet clean burning standards.  Probably from 32% to 30% efficiency.

So, technically places like Calgary will only get less expensive in the future, while those provinces without many natural gas power plants will probably continue to get more expensive.

Edited April 17, 2017 by ZenOps

[hot enough]

On 5/16/2016 at 2:39 PM, scribblet said:

I don't have a problem with requiring new homes to be more energy efficient, they should all be at least R2000. They should also give grants for people to upgrade insulation and put in better windows etc.

A great indication of how you operate on propaganda fed to you.

[scribblet]

On 1/18/2017 at 7:25 PM, ?Impact said:

Actually Wynne did not shut down a single coal plant, and neither did McGuinty. The bulk of them were shut down by Ernie Eves, although I do give credit to Mike Harris for Lakeshore (one of the single good things he did).

The McGuinty Gov’t closed the coal-fired Lakeview Generating Station in 2005, Wynne closed Thunder Bay stn.  in 2014.  There has been no appreciable difference in air pollution levels but it did significantly raise the cost of hydro.

[xpers3312]

Anybody likes unemployment? Well, construction and development workers should start getting their bedrooms nice and cozy to spend a lot of time in.

Ontario performed the classic Wynne knee jerk and is tampering with the housing market without examining data, facts and economic outcomes.

As great as the Federal Liberal Government has been to date at being calculative and careful, I think the K.Wynne has just single handedly sealed the Libs political tomb.

[Argus]

I would imagine that rental housing will start getting much much harder to find now that they've decided to put rent control on all new units. I can't think of a better way to discourage the building of rental housing.

[PIK]

Easter weekend costed us $20m for wind power, while the turbines were on idle, because we did not need the power.

[taxme]

On 5/16/2016 at 7:42 AM, Argus said:

It's an ambitious plan, but the Liberals have been working steadily at making Ontario into a vast welfare state on the edge of bankruptcy for twelve years now, and they're running out of time before the mouth breathers in Toronto finally decide enough is enough. Now they're going to spend billions of dollars over the next four years to wean Ontario off cheap natural gas and onto expensive electricity.

While natural gas prices have been plunging the cost of electricity in Ontario has been skyrocketing, and will soon be the most expensive in this hemisphere. Now Ontario will require all new homes be built be heated without using carbon fuels, ie, gas or oil. Given what they've done to electricity prices that will pretty much end the purchase of new homes, which means end the construction of new homes. They will expand this requirement to all new buildings as soon as they see how well the first stage is working at destroying the construction industry.

They will also scatter billions of tax dollars, which actually means borrowed dollars to the four winds, literally in some cases, to encourage a wide variety of programs which will, given our familiarity with the Liberal government, be inefficient, ineffective, and serve mainly to enrich companies which donate money to the Liberal party.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ontario-to-spend-7-billion-in-sweeping-climate-change-plan/article30029081/

Too bad that most of our useless stunned bunch of politically correct politicians of ours cannot be arrested for blowing taxpayer's tax dollars on useless programs and agendas that do more harm to we the people than help. Canada needs a Taxpayer Party that will cut red tape, rules and regulations, have less taxes, and have less government. Refgerendums and recall is the only route to go. Take the power away from the thieves and liars otherwise the silly nonsense will go on forever. Geez, I wish the people would wake the hell up and get off their lazy butts and do something for Canada for a change rather than always just keep thinking about what is good for them only. 

[cannuck]

On 5/8/2017 at 1:25 PM, taxme said:

Too bad that most of our useless stunned bunch of politically correct politicians of ours cannot be arrested for blowing taxpayer's tax dollars on useless programs and agendas that do more harm to we the people than help. Canada needs a Taxpayer Party that will cut red tape, rules and regulations, have less taxes, and have less government. Refgerendums and recall is the only route to go. Take the power away from the thieves and liars otherwise the silly nonsense will go on forever. Geez, I wish the people would wake the hell up and get off their lazy butts and do something for Canada for a change rather than always just keep thinking about what is good for them only. 

Jon the Canadian Taxpayer's Federation.  You really do not want a "taxpayer's party" as it can only be effective if it wins.  NGO can scream at and expose stupidity regardless of WHO is in power - and sway a lot of votes.