Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7479
Reputation: 299.1
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2017 6:04 pm    Post subject: Effects of Coal Shutdown in Ontario Reply with quote

Quote:
Report co-author Ross McKitrick, an economics professor at the University of Guelph, said the findings should act as a cautionary tale for Alberta and Ottawa currently going down the same road.

Even though there was reliable information available at the time that showed Ontario coal was not a big player in common air pollution ingredients, the political agenda made it impossible to discuss less expensive options to full closure, he said.


Quote:
McKitrick also disputed the health savings claim, noting the government argued in 2005 that it could save $3 billion in annual health care costs by shuttering coal — roughly 10% of the whole health care budget at the time.

“It wasn’t questioned,” McKitrick said. “People were at the time and largely remain very uniformed about the sources of air pollution emissions in Ontario so this picture was created that these two power plants were blanketing the province with smog.”

Scrubbers would not have reduced greenhouse gas emissions, but McKitrick argued the purchase of carbon offsets would have been an inexpensive option


Quote:
“It was a decisive change in the trajectory of electricity costs,” Adams said Monday. “Figuring out exactly what the cost of getting rid of coal is, that’s hard country because there are so many moving parts ... But if I’m asked to put a price tag on it, it’s something like $5 billion a year.”

An Ontario auditor report noted that between 2003-14, the province eliminated 7,546 MW of electricity generation from coal and added 13,595 MW of new capacity — mostly wind, natural gas and nuclear power.

During that time period, Ontario electricity consumers saw the commodity portion of their bill rise by 80%, the auditor found.


http://www.torontosun.com/2017.....ion-report
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7479
Reputation: 299.1
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2017 6:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

While I will take the entire report with a grain of salt; however there are certainly some lessons learnt to be taken away from this.

The reality is that the majority of objections raised to the OLP plan to make Coal Fire Plants Illegal in Ontario from 2004 was largely apt.

Electricity did skyrocket, alternatives were not as cost effective as advertised, the healthcare savings discussed were pretty far off, and the net reduction in pollution was largely overstated.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6531
Reputation: 235.2
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2017 6:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't think the results of this report should come as a surprise , the coal plants were only a small % of the overall emissions in Ontario and much of the dirty air in southern Ontario comes from across the border .


people at queens park should of seen the hydro rate hikes coming years ago , maybe they did and they just didn't care or felt there environmental agenda was more important
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7479
Reputation: 299.1
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Thu Jan 19, 2017 10:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

RCO wrote:
I don't think the results of this report should come as a surprise , the coal plants were only a small % of the overall emissions in Ontario and much of the dirty air in southern Ontario comes from across the border .

people at queens park should of seen the hydro rate hikes coming years ago , maybe they did and they just didn't care or felt there environmental agenda was more important


The issue was there was no realistic long term planning as part of this program.
It was a lot of discussion about alternative power sources which simply were not ready for prime time in our climate within our existing cost of power generation.

We had discussions in 2006 about adding 4800MW to Darlington,
The Province even went to tender for this expansion in 2009 and then walked away.

Now we spending 12 billion dollars to refurbish Darlington;
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/.....-1.3395696

Bruce Power is going to spend 13 billion to keep The Bruce Going;
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/.....-1.3348633

And its only a matter of time till the Provincial Government swallows its pride (or they are voted out) and Pickering gets a similar 12+ Billion Dollar overhaul because we had no forward thinking in terms of energy strategy.

If we had four more reactors in Darlington that got started in 2009, we wouldn't be in this mess today.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6531
Reputation: 235.2
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 10:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Liberal hot air on coal plants shutdown


First posted: Saturday, January 21, 2017 05:35 PM EST | Updated: Saturday, January 21, 2017 05:38 PM EST


It’s obvious why Premier Kathleen Wynne’s government was anxious to discredit a report by the Fraser Institute last week that Ontario’s closure of its five coal-fired electricity plants did not significantly improve provincial air quality.

That decision cost Ontario taxpayers billions of dollars and helped to send electricity rates skyrocketing, because coal is a cheap form of energy.

The problem for the Liberals is that if the report by economists Ross McKitrick and Elmira Aliakbari is accurate, it discredits the Liberals’ claim their closure of the coal plants saved taxpayers $3 billion a year in health costs, $4.4 billion when environmental costs are added in.

The Liberals have always claimed closing Ontario’s coal plants has saved thousands of lives and prevented thousands of hospitalizations due to pollution.

The irony, however, is that the Wynne government’s attempt to refute the Fraser Institute report, brought it into direct conflict with what the government of her Liberal predecessor, Dalton McGuinty, told the public a decade earlier.

The Fraser Institute report contends that closing Ontario’s five coal plants didn’t significantly improve air quality, and that the Liberals knew it wouldn’t from the government’s own research at the time, because most of the problem was caused by cross-border emissions from 150 U.S. coal plants, many old and outdated, in the American midwest.

That mirrors the position of the McGuinty government in 2005 and 2006 as it campaigned to reduce U.S. coal plant emissions because of their impact on Ontario.

McGuinty, his then environment minister, Laurel Broten, and political allies such as former Toronto mayor David Miller, all identified U.S. coal emissions as being responsible for most of Ontario’s pollution and smog problems, in some cases up to 90%.

McKitrick and Aliakbari argue the fact Ontario’s air quality levels have improved since then wasn’t due to the Liberals’ closure of the province’s five coal plants — the last in 2014.

Rather, it was the result of such factors as the 2008 global recession and the fracking boom in the U.S., which led to many American coal plants being replaced by cleaner burning natural gas.

In other words, the Liberals’ closing of Ontario’s coal plants, despite its huge cost to Ontario taxpayers and hydro ratepayers, wasn’t necessary to lower Ontario pollution levels, which was mainly achieved by an economic recession and fracking technology.

The Liberals can argue that in order to press their case for the U.S. to close its polluting, coal-fired, electricity plants in the Midwest, they had to demonstrate Ontario was prepared to do the same.

That added to the credibility of Ontario’s argument as it lobbied American politicians and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to take action.

But it doesn’t change the fact the problem appears to have been addressed by factors that had nothing to do with the Liberals’ decision to phase out coal.

http://www.torontosun.com/2017.....s-shutdown
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7479
Reputation: 299.1
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Over the last week I have seen this from the David Suzuki foundation used as rebuttal to the above study

Quote:
"Public support for ending coal use is enormous. People know burning coal poisons the air and leads to health problems, particularly for children and the elderly. And they understand it contributes to climate change. In 2005, Ontario had 53 days with smog warnings. In 2014, after the province's last coal plant closed, there were zero smog days."
— Gideon Forman, climate change and transportation policy analyst, David Suzuki Foundation


http://www.davidsuzuki.org/med.....tion-wide/

Also found here;
http://www.torontosun.com/2017.....oal-plants
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7479
Reputation: 299.1
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The problem with the above is this;

While there were 53 Smog days in 2005;
There were 20 and 19 respectively in 2004 and 2003 and 30 in 2012

http://www.airqualityontario.c....._stats.php

Given that Lakeview was closed in 2005 (April) and that Nanticoke, Lampton, and Thunder Bay were operating at a fraction of full output by 2011 I am not sure of the information used supports the conclusion?

As an example Nanticoke was outputting less than 20% of its 2008 levels; (Ontario had 17 Smog Days in 2008) when compared to 2011, even less so in 2012 when Ontario had the most smog days since 2007.

http://www.ec.gc.ca/ges-ghg/do.....;year=2013

Don't get me wrong, the numbers are trending in a positive direction but I would be interested to understand why we had more smog days in 2012 than in 2003 of the removal of coal as a power source is seemingly responsible for no smog days in 2014?
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 6531
Reputation: 235.2
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2017 1:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

for some reason the weather around 2003-2005 seemed to allow for the development of smog in greater amounts then we were used to , in Ontario we haven't seen many smog days in recent years that I can remember

I'd personally feel there was weather or climate related reasons for the sudden smog increases back then and less about the coal plants being closed as they had operated for years and we hadn't seen smog days like that before

not a weather expert but that's just my thoughs
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1

  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


Effects of Coal Shutdown in Ontario

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB