Due Diligence on Renewable Demands by David Suzuki Foundation

© April 26, 2017

The tax-payer subsidized charity David Suzuki Foundation is asking Canadians to participate in a “Power Up Renewable Energy” promotion campaign based on partisan demands that are not supported by evidence.  Due diligence reveals these claims and demands to be false and misleading to the public, and if implemented, would be a wasteful use of public funds and detrimental for the nation at large.

Meeting the Paris COP-21 GHG reduction targets would reduce the Canadian economy to that of Chad. Canada’s GDP per capita ranking by the IMF, in 2015, is 21st at $45,602 while Chad ranks 155th with $2,640 per citizen. This would not be a public benefit to Canada. 

Friends of Science Society has done the due diligence on the David Suzuki Foundation claims in a new report.

Click on the link below to download the report:

Due Diligence Suzuki Foundation FINAL Ap 26 2017 R

Upon review of the report, readers are invited to contact the Prime Minister, relevant ministers or their local MP to make their views known. Please discuss and share this information with family and friends.

The Right Honourable Justin Trudeau           pm@pm.gc.ca
The Honourable Catherine McKenna           catherine.mckenna@canada.ca
The Honourable Bill Morneau                      bill.morneau@canada.ca
The Honourable Jim Carr                             Minister.Ministre@NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca
The Honourable Marc Garneau                   mintc@tc.gc.ca
The Honourable Amarjeet Sohi                    infc.minister-ministre.infc@canada.ca


cover due diligence suzuki

The Myth of the 97% Consensus. Hey! They’re fooling you.

On March 17, 2017, Michelle Stirling presented “The Myth of the 97% Consensus” to the FreedomTalk.ca Annual Conference in Calgary, Alberta.

In her talk, she deconstructs a number of the most cited consensus surveys and explains why there is no 97% consensus, why this figure is repeatedly used as ‘statisticulation’ and what the Asch Conformity Experiment is all about in relation to the consensus claim.


The powerpoint is here: The Myth of the 97% Consensus FINAL AB MS Ap 04 2017

Asch Conformity Experiment: https://youtu.be/NyDDyT1lDhA

Friends of Science Society’s “97% Consensus? NO! Global Warming Math Myths & Social Proofs.”

Michelle Stirling’s additional works on the topic:

  1.  “Consensus Nonsensus on 97%: Science is Not a Democracy”
  2. 97% Consequential Misperceptions: Ethics of Consensus on Global Warming “
  3. “Infiltration” and 3 video clips

97 percent theyre fooling you (2)



Contributed by Robert Lyman © 2017

Robert Lyman will be one of our special guest speakers at the May 9th, 2017 “Climate Dogma Exposed” event at the Red and White Club, McMahon Stadium, Calgary.  Information and Tickets at http://www.friendsofscience.org or EventBrite.

At a recent conference in Calgary, Steve Kronin, a former under secretary in the U.S. Department of Energy and a New York University professor, predicted that electric vehicles will make up 50 percent of the vehicles on the road by 2050 and that this will pose a threat to the oil industry because of its dampening effect on fuel demand.


Kronin’s remarks echo those of many advocates for electric vehicles who enjoy speculating about the future. Their objective, perhaps, is to reinforce the thesis that there will be an easy and inevitable transition to a “decarbonized” world economy.


Let us, instead, examine the facts and draw our conclusions from them.


There is no question that there has been a relatively rapid growth in the sales of electric vehicles (EV), including both electric hybrids (PHEVs) and all-electric cars (BEVs), since 2010. Annual global sales of plug-in models rose from 134,000 in 2012 to 774,000 in 2016. By the end of 2016, cumulative global sales of plug-in passenger cars and light utility vehicles passed the two million mark.


These sales were stimulated in large part by continuing large government subsidies in North America, Europe and China.  The geographic distribution of sales offers some insight into why sales have increased so fast. China, which has poured billions of dollars into consumer subsidies, had 645,000 cumulative sales of plug-ins by the end of 2016. In the United States, where federal subsidies of up to $7,500 per vehicle are available in addition to various state-level subsidies, the cumulative sales total was 570,000 vehicles. Japan accounted for 147,500 and Europe 637,000. Norway alone has the highest plug-in electric car segment. There, extremely rich subsidies have driven plug-ins to 29% of new car sales.


That, for EVs, is the good news. However, a little perspective is in order.


For all the growth from small beginnings, plug-in electric vehicles still represent less than 0.15 percent of the global light duty vehicle stock. In the United States alone, annual EV sales are far less than 1% of the total. Last year, there were 17 million new cars sold in the United States that run on oil fuels. There were 157,000 EV sales.


It is far from clear that governments will continue indefinitely the large subsidies that have underpinned EV sales. In the United States, it has always been a feature of the existing program that the subsidies to an EV producer would end when its sales reached the 200,000 vehicle level. The Trump Administration is now in the process of eliminating or reducing many of the subsidy and regulatory programs implemented by the former Obama Administration to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; one wonders how long the U.S. subsidy program can last. China has announced that it will eliminate EV subsidies by 2020. European taxpayers have begun to tire of endless subsidies to various “green” causes; even there, governments are starting to take a closer look at whether such subsidies are justified when most of them go to consumers who could afford to buy the vehicles without subsidies.


Nonetheless, many countries remain committed publicly to a vision of rapidly growing EV sales. The International Energy Agency (IEA) has developed a policy and planning process called Energy Technology Perspectives that seeks to chart technology paths towards the reduction of global GHG emissions from 33 gigatonnes (Gt) in 2013 to about 15 Gt in 2050. The IEA vision for transportation sees EVs constituting 150 million (10%) of the total light duty vehicle stock by 2030 and nearly 1 billion (40%) of the total light duty vehicle stock by 2050. The 2015 Paris Declaration on Electro-Mobility and Climate Change, announced at the time of the COP21 conference, set more modest targets of 400 million electric two-wheelers and 100 million EVs by 2030.


With these targets in mind, on which growth path are EVs? Continuation of the relatively fast rate of growth in sales plus some acceleration could yield a vehicle stock of 7.4 to 13 million EVs by 2020. In contrast, an annual growth in sales by 230,000 units per year, as has happened over the last three years, would produce a stock of less than 3 million units by 2020 and less than 7 million units by 2030. Either outcome would be still be tiny in comparison to a global vehicle population of 1.3 billion.


Further, the most optimistic projections of EV sales have very limited implications for global oil demand growth. Over the period since 2008, in spite of the most serious recession since the Great Depression, world oil demand has increased from 86 million barrels per day to 97 million barrels per day, or around 1 million barrels per day per year. If that trend continues, then even the most optimistic scenarios for growth in EV sales would only make a slight dent in oil demand growth. Oil would continue, as it is now, the most important energy source on the planet.

– 30 –

Responding to a Tweet about a Graph

On March 31, 2017 on our twitter feed we received this comment and marked up graph from peaceful data boy @jamjoumie  I wish you were applied the same skepticism of methodology to the appallingly misleading visualisations you cite

tweeted christy graph w criticisms

Since twitter is an unlikely forum for full explanations, we offer this blog post written up by our resident climate model and graph expert, Ken Gregory, B. AppSc.  Ken has assessed models for the past decade and provides these insights on the Canadian Climate Model.

Response to Tweeted Graph with Comments

Contributed by Ken Gregory © 2017

Source of the graph is: “JH Christy”, John H. Christy from the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

About the notes on the graph below;
1) [Data improperly aligned to visually exaggerate the difference.] The box at the bottom left shows that the linear trend of all times series intersect at zero at 1979, which is the first year of the satellite data. This is the best and fairest way to present the model and data comparisons. The data sets all aligned together at the start, or left side, so you can see how separated they are at the end, or right side. This is like most races, where the athletes start at the same point and you see how separated they are at the finish line.

2) [No uncertainty ranges shown.] It is impossible to estimate uncertainty ranges for a model run, or an average of many model runs. Uncertainty can be calculated when it is due to random events. Climate model trends are dependent on the choices made by climate modelers, like assuming upper atmosphere relative humidity stays constant with warming, or more water vapour and warming causes less clouds, or that urban warming has zero effect of weather stations, all of which are contradicted by data. The choices are greatly influenced by the desire to meet the IPCC and government funding agency expectations, the need to show a catastrophic projection to ensure continued funding, modeler biases, peer pressure, etc.   Uncertainty can be assigned to data measurement, but only to the random error component. Data is also subject to systemic errors, unknown errors, and biases of those interpreting and correcting the raw data. These errors are impossible to quantify. The range of all the model trends is not a measure of uncertainty. The average of the models is the consensus of the AGW theory which is used for climate policy.

3) [Averages together datasets, hiding that they aren’t in close agreement.]  The UAH and RSS satellite datasets trends are both much less than the multi-model average trend, which is about 0.24 C/decade. HERE is a graph of the UAH and RSS mid-troposphere datasets. The trends of UAH and RSS are 0.085 and 0.140 C/decade, respectively. RRS had recently increase the trend from 0.094 in version 3.3 to 0.140 C/decade in version 4. NOAA also publishes a satellite analysis.

4) [Doesn’t include other groups work estimating greater warming.]  There are only 3 groups publishing satellite temperature data.

5) [We don’t live on Mount Everest or in airplanes.]  Nobody claimed this so the comment is irrelevant. The graph is presented as a test of the AGW theory embedded in the climate models. A graph comparing surface temperature trends would not be a proper test as the climate modelers adjust various parameters, especially aerosols, to roughly match the surface temperature trend to the published surface datasets. The greenhouse effect operates primarily in the upper atmosphere, ie, a change in the amount of a greenhouse gas at 11 km altitude has 80 times as much effect as the same change near the surface, so the mid-troposphere is the proper region to test the theory.


People often like to say Canadians cause global warming because of our oil and gas industries, but Ken shows in this video that Canadians only cause noticeable global warming in simulations – and then only because these rather exaggerated predictions are the ones favoured by groups in power of climate policy reports…

Chamber of Horrors – Minister McKenna Comes to Calgary

Opinion – Contributed by Michelle Stirling ©2017

Imagine your company faces serious, imminent, economic risks.  Imagine that last year friends and family were forced to flee wildfires in Fort McMurray and that’s part of the reason your business is on the brink.  Imagine that just 3 years before that, your business also took a hit in the Calgary floods, and maybe you were one of the unlucky people on the flood plain whose home or business was damaged or destroyed.

Imagine you attend a Chamber of Commerce luncheon about economic opportunity, only to have two out-of-towners peddle their climate change carbon price wares by dancing on your distress.

Yes, that was the Chamber of Horrors in Calgary March 9, 2017.

Calgarians are friendly and polite, so no one said anything out loud.

But most of us know that the eight worst floods in Calgary’s history were before 1933; two of those had greater flow than the 2013 flood by quite a lot. So – the Calgary flood was not about climate change. It was a weather event with unusual combination of circumstances.

calgary flood years weather net

And Alberta has lived through wildfires every season – even Calgarians know them well, despite being high up on a near barren plain, because we get to breathe in the wildfire smoke plumes from BC, Washington, Northern Alberta, Saskatchewan and sometimes even Siberia. We know the Fort McMurray wildfires were human caused and they ripped through Fort Mac in part because the government of Alberta was asleep at the wheel and had cut wildfire budgets and contracts, despite clear recommendations post-Slave Lake, that we needed to be prepared by April 15 – crews, equipment, contracts, the works. We weren’t.


flat top cover.png


That’s mismanagement, not climate change.


Bill Adams, VP Western Canada for the Insurance Bureau of Canada introduced guest speaker, the Hon. Catherine McKenna, Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, with a dose of climate gloom and doom remarks. He then neatly tied the story line to his pitch by saying “Timothy Lane, Deputy governor of the Bank of Canada agrees and pointed to that fact in a recent speech where he made the economic case for carbon pricing. Lane made it clear that climate change is already having a profound impact on Canada’s economy and financial systems. And like most Canadians, we support efforts to reduce carbon emissions while protecting our economy.”

He’s wrong on climate change and wildfire…and carbon pricing as any means of protection.



How did bankers and insurance brokers arrive at that conclusion? Spending too much time with anti-oil activist groups who make a living hawking climate porn?




Mr. Lane is not a climate scientist or wildfire expert. Neither such expert would make the claim that the Fort McMurray wildfire event supports carbon pricing as a means of stopping wildfires or floods. That’s just silly. One-of events are not climate change.  Climate patterns are measured in 30, 50, 100 year and millennial timescales. Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change rejects the notion that global warming would cause extreme weather events.

judith curry

Excerpt of Dr. Judith Curry’s 2014 testimony to US Senate


And how about that smooth buy-in line “Like most Canadians…” Albertans are Canadians and most loudly reject carbon pricing.


Mr. Adams introduced the Minister who immediately reminded us that ‘climate change is real.’

2. Holocene Warming periods


Honestly. Alberta, and Calgary have one of the highest per capita ratios of Professional Geoscientists and Professional Engineers, perhaps in the world but certainly in Canada. People who have studied 4 billion years of earth’s changes can tell the Minister a thing or two about how climate change is real and that it changes – a lot – without any human influence.  And the Professional Engineers can explain how a 0.02°C change (two one-hundredths) in temperature over 2015 is not a sign of anything because it falls within a 1 degree margin of error – so, could have been warmer…or cooler.  In fact, an averaged temperature from so many ‘adjusted’ sources is simply a metric – not an actual temperature measurement anymore.

But I digress.

The horror continued – worst of all was the Minister’s own statement that she knew nothing about the ‘climate file’ before beetling off to Paris to negotiate it.  Perhaps it was her blithe, happy-go-lucky, ‘so what’ tone that struck me as illustrating how completely oblivious she is to what her agreement will do to this country, if we try to follow through.


She said: “So when I took this job I immediately went to the climate negotiations. I actually didn’t know about the climate file. I had to figure out what a COP* was. What is this COP? Many people had been to more than one COP, 13, 14 COPs.  I got there, dug in and we were able to get the very ambitious climate agreement but then the rubber had to hit the road here….”  (*COP- Conference of the Parties – int’l meeting on climate policy…going on for 22 years now.)


The rubber had to hit the road here.


Really? Rubber.


I certainly felt a moment of OMG in that roomful of Albertans, many of whom work in the sciences, most in businesses associated with the energy industry, being told that the person who negotiated an international agreement that could turn the Canadian economy into that of Chad, knew nothing about the subject going in.


She then added that she also considered herself a trade minister and that ‘she gets it’ about trade with the US.


The next frightening thing was her reference to Mark Carney for advice on the climate file.


Regarding Mr. Carney, “He said, first of all, we need to take climate action because it’s a huge risk for companies that don’t. So, that’s what keeps me up at night. If we don’t take action, then we’re going to go off a cliff.”


Climate catastrophe bandwagonning doesn’t cut it if you are using a bank governor as your science source, relying on his much-vaunted address to Lloyds of London of Sept 29, 2015.  Especially when Steve Kopitz of Princeton Energy Advisors has found that none of Mr. Carney’s climate catastrophe claims are supported by actual climate data, freely available on US government websites.  Kopitz called Carney’s talk “a failure of analysis.”


So, no cliff, Minister McKenna. Not about climate, anyway.

But, the Minister did show a picture of a pipeline to impress us that two pipelines were approved.

We Albertans don’t really care about that. We only care about pipelines that get built, Minister.


The rest of the show and tell ventured off into much cheer-leading about how entrepreneurial we are and how there’s a $30 trillion market of clean growth ‘opportunities’ out there.  Oddly the minister seemed to be unaware that we already hold the key to any growth of any kind and any industrial development – because we have all the oil, natural gas and coal that is required to make anything. Everything. Even the Tesla and the Ballard fuel-cell buses she showed us as examples of innovation or the wind farms and solar panels. Tesla runs on coal powered electricity. Ballard buses are manufactured – built with materials extracted from or mined by the energy of oil, natural gas and coal. And to get wind you need oil. LOTS of it. So – get our product to market.

2rc8vih oil equivalent energy

To obtain in one year the amount of energy contained in one cubic mile of oil, each year for 50 years we would need to have produced the numbers of dams, nuclear power plants, coal plants, windmills, or solar panels shown here.



We just need to get those green trade warrior ENGOs out of the way!

IFIP mostly silent pg 47



About 81% of the world’s energy sources come from fossil fuels – only 1.4% come from renewables like wind and solar. Despite showing pix of wind turbines and solar panels, this ‘shift’ will take decades and LOTS of oil and gas and coal.

IEA fossil fuesl vs re


In the meantime, there are millions of cars in the world that run on gas – showing us 10 Ballard fuel-cell buses is not impressive or representative of an economic opportunity, though interesting.

  • Of 907 million personal vehicles on the road worldwide in 2014, 405,000 were EV’s. EVs constituted 0.04 % of the PVs on the road globally.
  • Sales of all-electric trucks and buses are negligible.
  • Of 88 million new vehicle sales in the world in 2014, 307,000 were EVs. That is, the EV share of new vehicle sales was 0.35%. In 2015, that probably rose to one half of one percent.
  • To reach 60% of present PV sales by 2040, EV sales would have to increase to 120 times today’s level.
  • The potential growth in total vehicle sales globally is immense, especially in Asia, the Middle East and Africa. The likelihood that EV sales will constitute 60% of the much-increased sales of all vehicles by 2040 approaches zero.
  • Internal combustion engines, powered by petroleum fuels, will be the dominant source of motive power for a very long time.



And…if Tesla is innovation, just give us $5 billion and we’ll come up with something nice too.

In the meantime, some American analysts have posted comedic commentaries on how many beer do you have to drink to believe Tesla …others see it as having similar financial patterns to Enron.

tesla enron davidson research


A subsidized Tesla is a horrible example to show us.  Especially when the federal government has written a big fat subsidy cheque to Bombardier, which sits on a port and has global access for its products, but that same Liberal government can’t cough up any reasonable financial support for landlocked Alberta with about 200,000 people unemployed and Fort McMurray still lies, largely in ashes.  It’s a horrible example when this government plays footsie with environmentalists who are blocking pipelines, resource development and demarketing coal power, while claiming ‘victory’ over pipeline approvals. It’s a horrible example that the government has the gall to send a sunny ways senior minister to further demoralize an already hurting market, exploiting our pain to claim that carbon pricing will save the planet, stop floods and wildfires….

Also, it was horrible to hear the Minister tout a carbon capture project as viable because multi-billionaire Bill Gates has thrown money at it.  Minister McKenna, Bill Gates has a net worth of $89.5 billion – billions he can afford to lose.

We don’t. Besides, trying to make gas from air is…energy intensive!

Comments from engineering-types:

  • I suspect as soon as you run any kind of energy balance on this you will find it is a net sucker of energy.  There is a reason (several, actually) why we don’t use much carbon capture from combustion streams like coal flue gas – it is very diluted.  But that is nothing compared to how diluted CO2 in atmosphere is at 400 ppm.
  • This process takes 10Gj of NG as input, so unless it produces net power output, you already have a cost of say C$30-40/tonne CO2 before considering any other costs.
  • making O2 from an air separation unit is very power intensive and I suspect takes up most of the energy output, other than that taken up by pumps, compressors, fans, etc to run this thing.
  • Politicians should not promote things that have not been technically or economically vetted.

(PS – we are all for innovation….that makes sense!)

And it is horrible to think that an Environment Minister also fancies herself as a trade minister for helping sell TEN Ballard hydrogen fuel-cell buses to China, a market of a billion people (where ‘Canada has a very good relationship with China at the highest level of government.’ she said) …while Saudi Arabia just closed a $65 billion deal to supply oil to China.

HEY! If we’re serious on the environment and climate file that should have been OUR deal because Canada is quite a few thousand nautical miles closer to China, based on a quick Google search.


Saudi Arabi-Bejing: 7,341 Nautical miles

Vancouver Bejing: 4,609 Nautical miles

We are CLOSER to China than Saudia Arabia, so there would be much less fuel consumption/emissions for transport. And did I mention, we also have the highest environmental standards of production. #CleanGrowthCentury

But obviously, none of this is about climate change or the environment. It’s about pushing carbon trading.

So, is this how the world foists a carbon trading market upon us? Lock in our resources and squeeze us dry? That’s a different kind of extraction industry, a kind of extortion. Albertans normally do business on a handshake, not a kneecap.


Kudos to the Calgary Chamber of Commerce and sponsors for arranging this “Chamber of Horrors” presentation, as painful as it was to hear.


At least we know exactly what we’re up against. And, we know it is folly. Would be nice to have a list of where institutional investment funds are placed…just to make sure there’s no…you know, vested interests driving this conversation.

For me it was most certainly, the Chamber of Horrors. And we know that #BetterISPossible

And sadly it was repeated this past week with a full supplement in the Hill Times March 13, 2017 pumping out the same old Alberta/Fort McMurray wildfires-extreme weather-climate change-carbon price  misinformation to Americans.


Thank heavens the US Government and @POTUS are far more pragmatic and really want to put people back to work. They approved Keystone XL. And based on how they cleared out protestors at DAPL, who left an unholy mess behind them while claiming to want to save the earth, it seems that Blockadia might be a thing of the past, too.

Come and hear our speakers at CLIMATE DOGMA EXPOSED – May 9th, 2017. Tickets at http://www.friendsofscience.org or Eventbrite.





Pembina Institute Invented Alternative Facts on Renewable Energy’s Impact on Global Warming

Opinion – By Michelle Stirling © Feb. 24, 2017


In a National Newswatch op-ed of Feb. 21, 2017, Ed Whittingham of Pembina Institute attacks Dr. Jack Mintz, claiming Mintz was “discrediting” Canada’s emerging climate plan with “alternative facts” related to Alberta’s coal phase-out and predicted rising power utility costs.  Whittingham claims Germany is going off coal. The US EIA shows Germany is predominantly driven by 44% coal power, 10% natural gas and 15% nuclear. Much of Germany’s wind and solar production is exported, with surges often causing grid problems and blackouts in neighbouring countries.


Whittingham decries the unnamed “utility experts” Mintz refers to in his Feb. 15, 2017 Financial Post column. Power generation experts abound in Alberta and they support Mintz’ views. Here are some names for Ed. #names4Ed


One is Dean Rosehart of the University of Calgary who hosted a 2015 Distinguished Speaker event on Alberta’s deregulated power system. Any of the panelists could have informed Dr. Mintz. Maybe he was even there!


In 2014, we asked one of those panelists, Evan Bahry, Executive Director of the Independent Power Producers Society of Alberta (representing all forms of power generation), what it would cost to phase-out coal.  He told us in an email, permitting us to quote him verbatim, that it would require the equivalent of eight natural gas plants of 800 MegaWatt capacity to replace the power of the existing Alberta coal fleet.  Using the new Shepard Energy Center as a benchmark, built at a cost of $1.4 billion, it would be about > $11 billion – a replacement price that ultimately consumers will pay.  On top of that, he would not venture a guess as to the compensation to coal industry and investors for early phase-out – only saying it would come up to “many billions.”


Gary Reynolds, former CEO of the Balancing Pool, who is frequently cited in the press, helped enlighten us on compensation costs for stranded assets and what subsidies would have to be paid to wind and solar to make it attractive for them to enter the market. He anticipated a $35/kWh rate – or about $900 million a year.  In 2012, Morrison Park Advisors noted in a report to the Market Surveillance Authority of Alberta, posted on their website, that there was no interest in wind/solar investments in Alberta because power prices were too low.


A recent report “Potential Impacts on the AB Electricity Market of Policy Implementation Choices for the Climate Leadership Plan” and public speaking events by Duane Reid-Carlson of EDC Consultants shows it will cost billions more than the Alberta government is saying it will cost to phase-out coal and implement wind and solar.  Billions must be spent for transmission lines and integration for intermittent wind and solar – for very little energy return on energy invested.  Prof. Michael J. Kelly, engineering professor at Cambridge, recently published a paper entitled “Lessons from Technology Development for Energy and Sustainability” showing that wind and solar energy return is so low that it cannot even provide sufficient energy for a basic society that has education, let alone one that revels in high culture and air travel


So – experts abound.  Whittingham is firing blanks.


Pembina’s Whittingham claims that humans can reduce rising global temperatures, it just might cost you to do so.  The Pembina crew claimed that back in 2002 when our soon-to-be scientific advisers debated Kyoto with Pembina representatives in the journal of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geosciences of Alberta.  Our scientific advisers said it was the sun that directly and indirectly drove climate change and warming/cooling cycles.  Pembina claimed that the IPCC had a consensus that it was human emissions.


Now, some 15 years later we find that, excepting a couple of naturally-caused El Nino’s, there has been no statistically significant global warming despite all dire predictions and despite a significant rise in carbon dioxide concentration. Warming has simply not matched the theory.  Of course, the World Meteorological Organization did claim it was the ‘hottest year ever.’ If you take their margin of error of 0.1°C it means that the temperature could have been +0.12°C (global warming) or -0.08°C (cooling).


And what of renewables saving the planet? Well, here is where Pembina’s alternative facts come in. Environmental activist Robert Kennedy’s quote says it best in Energy Post of April 7, 2016 – when you install wind and solar you are really just building a natural gas plant. One natural gas plant like Shepard for $1.4 billion will put out 800 megawatts of power  almost 24/7. In Alberta, just the transmission line to southern wind farms cost $2.2 billion. For that we only get ~7% of our power….only when the wind blows just right.


Ontario Professional Engineers have reported that carbon dioxide emissions will rise if you add wind and solar to the grid because they must be backed up by natural gas plants. Only natural gas peaking plants are nimble enough to match Mother Nature’s dips and surges, but matching her whims creates more emissions.


How so?


Alberta power generation experts explained to us that the problem with wind is its randomness, wind is completely uncorrelated with demand. If the Alberta government adds another 5,000 MW then the total wind capacity* would be ~6,500 MW. Typically, this amount of wind would randomly experience 80% or higher ramps one or more times per week. This would be the equivalent of ramping 6.5 Shepard natural gas plants from off to full to off again. These plants are unable to do this over the long term. Thus, power operators may end up having to put in simple cycle units instead which, from a CO2 perspective, would defeat the alleged CO2-reduction purpose of adding wind.


If Pembina believes carbon dioxide from human industry drives global warming, why do they push wind and solar? Obviously for the subsidies or Renewable Energy Certificates – these enrich green crony capitalists at the expense of the poor and middle class, and do nothing for climate change or environmental benefits.


Further, as Warren Kindzierski, Associate Professor in the School of Public Health at the University of Alberta revealed in his peer-reviewed work and in a recent Financial Post op-ed, there is no air quality issue in Alberta related to coal-fired power plants as claimed by Pembina Institute and its acolytes. His research is supported by Alberta Health Services statistics, Alberta Air Quality data and numerous other peer-reviewed studies on related health/air quality issues.


Our several reports, like “A Costly Misdiagnosis,”  “Burning Questions,” “Alberta Climate Plan and Carbon Tax – A Burden with No Benefit,” and “Dire Consequences” are filled with peer-reviewed references showing that Pembina is just wrong on coal-health claims and costs of coal phase-out and the climate plan.


Whittingham and Pembina Institute are the ones promoting alternative facts – their costly misdiagnosis not supported by the evidence.


Someone should ask why we are adopting their discredited policies.


–       30 –

“Lessons from Technology Development for Energy and Sustainability”