February 27, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

After learning of my involvement with the utilities industry that lasted for more than 30 years, someone wrote to me and commented, “If you have some connections with some technical people in the utility business, that could be helpful.”

Yes, that is true. but only up to an extent, and most likely never to the extent where such connections would really matter.  Aside from that, it matters with which aspect of the utility business those technical people are involved.

I just read an ad by ENMAX (a Calgary-City-owned utility company).  The ad is one of those intrusive, targeted ones imposed by Google that pop up when searching the Internet.  It popped up in this case when I looked up the weather forecast for Edmonton.  The ad is intended to indoctrinate me into accepting that “With renewable energy playing a larger role than ever, the environmental future of Alberta has never been brighter” and is part of a currently massive advertising campaign in the mainstream media for which TV shows many commercials and for which even small-town newspapers feature whole-page ads that cater to the same theme.

Should one believe anything that comes from those quarters?

The mayor of Calgary concurs with ENMAX and with the theme of the massive propaganda campaign, but although his speech on energy issues was well received when he spoke at a recent ENMAX function (ENMAX is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the City of Calgary), he is not the best person to ask for an opinion on these issues.  He thinks that the pursuit of schemes for energy production from renewable sources is “the right thing to do”.

The Alberta government, which most definitely employs some technical people to be able to exercise its regulatory functions, is not likely to tell the truth about anything related to utilities.  They told me in 2001, when they deregulated the utility industry, that they were “committed to putting more money back into the pockets of Albertans.” I caught them out lying about many other issues. “The Alberta Advantage,” a slogan that Alberta politicians loved to mention on a daily basis and on every possible occasion, is not being mentioned much anymore these days, not since a number of businesses left the province or shut down on account of sky-rocketing energy prices.

How about someone in AltaLink?

As Canada’s only fully independent transmission company, we are responsible for the maintenance and operation of approximately 11,800 kilometres of transmission lines and 270 substations in Alberta. We own more than half of Alberta’s transmission grid and serve 85 per cent of its population. Additionally, we own the Alberta portion of the interconnection to British Columbia used to import and export electricity, connecting Alberta to the power grid in the Pacific Northwest. –AltaLink

Sounds great, but what about this?

AltaLink Enhances Reliability and Access to Green Power in 2010

February 25, 2011

During 2010, AltaLink improved system reliability by building and energizing new projects, and responding to increased demand from Albertans for wind generated electricity.

Sorry, they are neither an objective nor even an honest source of such information.  Then how about the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO)?  AESO is without a doubt very important, because, in their own words from their home page,

AESO leads the planning and operation of the power system, facilitates competitive electricity markets and ensures open access to the grid.

Well, if that would be a correct statement, then why the government- and industry-sponsored promotion of wind “farms” in Alberta that AESO facilitates?  Surely, with AESO “ensuring competitive electricity markets”, wind power would long ago have been laughed out of the market.  Of course, AESO is not an entirely independent organization.  It owes its very existence to the government and therefore a considerable psychological debt, if nothing else.

However, at the very least it is possible to obtain from AESO data on trends in electricity generation and consumption.

As to wind power, one of AESO’s operators wrote to me some time ago and complained that he is not happy about wind power and the serious threat it poses to the security, stability and quality of the electricity grid.  However, I do not recall that AESO ever spoke up officially against the promotion of escalating construction of wind power generating capacity.

The AESO seem to be the right party to get in touch with.  As to the sort of technical person one may want to contact at AESO, these search results for articles and papers on “wind power” at their website may provide ideas, but don’t get your hopes up too high.

The AESO is committed to integrating as much wind power as possible to the Alberta electric system without compromising reliability or the fair, efficient and openly competitive operation of the market. –AESO, Dec. 17, 2007 (Guide to wind power in Alberta, bottom of page 2)

There is a fundamental principle involved in all of this head-long rush for the promotion of wind power and energy generation from renewable sources.  It is a principle whose primary aim appears to be to rationalize the abrogation of common sense.  It seems that a fitting name for it would be Affirmative Action for Energy from Renewable Sources (AAERS).

AAERS does away with the requirement to be rational, logical, objective and fair when promoting government schemes for escalating tax revenues through tailored energy policies.  Instead, the promotion of AAERS needs no rationalization other than the assertion that “it is the right thing to do.”  That could well make it the ideal tool for politicians, because all checks and balances based on objective science no longer matter in decision-making relating to the utility business.  Moreover, no one will ever be able to hold anyone to account on any of this.  After all, even the most atrocious and most expensive utility boondoggles can be justified, simply because “they were the right thing to do.”

How can anyone argue against such a powerful tool, a tool that permits politicians and anyone else who can reap a profit from the utility business to get away with robbing the public in full public view?

______________
For related information on this, see Environmentalist Energy Concerns, February 25, 2011

Posted in Propaganda debunked, Corruption & Fraud, Energy Issues, Alternative Energy Sources | Print | No Comments »

February 25, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

This posting contains pointers to sources of information that set straight common misrepresentations and misconceptions in regard to commonly-perceived pieces of “wisdom” such as wind power, nuclear energy, carbon capture and sequestration, bio-fuels, and the current craze of replacing incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescent lamps.

Here are the links, grouped in alphabetical order of the main subject areas:

Alternative Energy Production

• Evaluation of comparative alternative energy production

Bio-Fuel

• To conjure gasoline out of corn and tax credits?
• The Ethanol debate — Ethanol through agricultural production: A scam?

Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS)

• Topple the “carbon” fraud
• Weyburn, Saskatchewan: Land fizzing like soda pop
• No price too high for appeasing climate alarmists (Shell’s Quest CCS project in Alberta’s Industrial Heartland)

Incandescent Light Bulbs vs. Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFLs)

• The future of the light-bulb ban

Nuclear Energy

• Nuclear power generation alarmism overblown
• Nuclear Power — Comparisons and Perspective
• Energy from Thorium

Wind Energy

• Wind Energy — The Case of Denmark
• WindPowerFacts.Info, by John Droz

From that:

Master Resource is a good site for energy information. An example of the articles appearing there is one by Dr. Michael Trebilcock (a Law Professor at the University of Toronto, etc.) and his excellent testimony about a proposed Ontario RPS [Renewable Portfolio Standard] type legislation. He does a fine job of stating a case against industrial wind energy.

There are several reports that have been published about the Dutch experience with wind power, and why it is not what it seems. This September 2009 study is a good summary. Another informative one is authored by Dr. Vic Mason, an energy expert: Wind Power in Denmark (version 12/08). Still another worthwhile one was written by J. A. Halkema (M.S.E.E.), also a Dutch energy expert, and is titled Wind Energy Facts and Fiction: A Half Truth is a Whole Lie.

There is much more.  For example, have a look at this exhaustive and very informative discussion in the form of a slide presentation:

EnergyPresentation.Info (12/1/2010), by John Droz (more than 200 very interesting slides). E. g.:

Source: Slide 99 of 213 at EnergyPresentation.Info by John Droz (click on icon for “full screen”, in the lower, right-hand corner of image, in the menu bar below the image to be able to see full-sized image)

Posted in Propaganda debunked, Corruption & Fraud, Energy Issues, Alternative Energy Sources | Print | No Comments »

February 14, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

By the Freedom Action Network:

1. The Future of the Light Bulb Ban
2. An Inconvenient Truth Keeps People Warm

Both videos are spoofs, you say.  Well, these news items on incandescent light bulbs are not spoofs:

• California may ban conventional lightbulbs by 2012 - Yahoo! News
• Alert to hoarders: old light bulbs soon to vanish ( Canada ), January 8, 2011
• Bootleg Lightbulbs Coming to California  (Starting Jan. 1, Incandescents cannot be bought .. legally) December 27, 2010
• German “heatball” wheeze outwits EU light bulb ban (Lightbulb=Heater) October 16, 2010
  (Alas, that thit not pan out. The importers were subsequently arrested and their contraband seized.)
• Thomas Edison, You’re Under Arrest ,September 10, 2010
  (In principle correct, except that, to set the record straight on that one, the real inventor of the light bulb was truly Sir Joseph Wilson Swan)

These stories about burning books to keep warm are not spoofs, either.

• Pensioners burn books for warmth | Metro.co.uk2.
• Why are they burning books in south Wales? | Money | The Guardian
• Shortcuts + Energy efficiency | From the Guardian | guardian.co.uk
• Fahrenheit 451 for Cash-Strapped UK Seniors - CNBC

By the way, it is not a good idea to use compact fluorescent lights (CFLs) in a bathroom.  Firstly they don’t last long where they are frequently switched on-and-off and, secondly, they are likely to experience early catastrophic failure in a moist environment.
______________
Related Story: Compact fluorescent lamps pose fire hazard?

All of which shows that trying not to become a criminal these days can put any law-abiding citizen into quite a quandary.

Posted in The New World Order, Propaganda debunked, Energy Issues | Print | 1 Comment »

January 26, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Someone wrote to me today, sending a message that has been circulating on the Internet for about a year, an article that warns that CFLs (Compact Fluorescent Lamps) can and may cause fires.

That claim has been debunked by a number of sources.

I wrote back to the individual: Check this link: CFL Bulb Fire Risk

Given the much-higher purchase price for CFLs, it seems that there is little advantage for anyone living in Canada in using CFLs instead of traditional incandescent light bulbs.  Here is more on that.

Heating and cooling

If a building’s indoor incandescent lamps are replaced by CFL’s, the heat produced due to lighting is significantly reduced. In warm climates or in office or industrial buildings where air conditioning is often required, CFL’s would reduce the load on the cooling system when compared to the use of incandescent lamps, resulting in savings in electricity, in addition to the energy efficiency savings of using CFL’s instead of incandescent lamps. However, in cooler climates in which buildings require heating, the heating system will need to replace the inadvertently generated heat. While the CFL’s are still saving electricity, total greenhouse gas emissions may increase in certain scenarios, such as the operation of a natural gas furnace to replace the unintended heating from CFL’s running on low-GHG electricity. In Winnipeg, Canada, it is estimated that CFL’s will only generate 17% savings in energy when switching from incandescent bulbs, as opposed to the 75% savings that can be expected if there were no heating or cooling considerations.^[21]
Source: Compact fluorescent lamp, Heating and cooling; Wikipedia

The Wikipedia article on CFLs contains this information about fire:

Fire hazard

When the base of the bulb is not made to be flame-retardant, as required in the voluntary standard for CFL’s, then the electrical components in the bulb can overheat which poses a fire hazard.^[80] The latest ENERGY STAR CFL specification (which went into effect December 2, 2008) requires all ENERGY STAR qualified CFL’s to incorporate end-of-life requirements and higher safety standards.^[81] The Electrical Safety Authority of Canada has stated that certified bulbs do not pose a fire hazard as they use anti-fire plastics.^[82]

Source: Compact fluorescent lamp, Design and application issues; Wikipedia

The article at the following link is reasonable with respect to it properly summarizing safety concerns.  Moreover, it is more recent than the year-old item you had forwarded.

CFL fire hazard a misconception
Fluorescent bulbs have safety measures built in

Full Story

However, that article promotes the misconception about CFLs being able to provide for large energy savings.  That CFLs will do so is quite simply not true for anyone living in an area requiring heating of one’s home, unless air-conditioning costs are substantially higher than heating costs.

I have not done a proper examination of the causes of fires.  It seems to me that I have read far more reports about incandescent lights causing fires than about fires caused by CFLs.  Nevertheless, I would play it safe and would not leave a CFL lit unattended if it is placed so that sparks from it, when it should fail catastrophically, could fall on any combustibles — such as upholstery — placed below it.  I seem to recall one report about a fire having been caused in Edmonton last year, involving those circumstances.

Nevertheless, any discussions about the relative merits of CFLs over incandescent lamps are now largely moot, unless anyone affected was smart enough to lay in a life-time supply of incandescent lamps.  The incandescent light bulbs we all had become accustomed to during the past hundred years are no longer being manufactured by General Electric, who closed down their last plant for manufacturing them in September of 2010.  In that area, too, climate alarmism won out over common sense.  Read this article: An end of an era – the incandescent light bulb (by Anthony Watts, Dec.27, 2010).

Posted in The New World Order, Propaganda debunked, Energy Issues, Explosions & Fires | Print | 3 Comments »

January 2, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Energy from Thorium — A website and discussion forum devoted to the discussion of thorium as a future energy resource, and the machine to extract that energy–the liquid-fluoride thorium reactor.

This is about liquid-fluoride thorium reactors, a means of producing nuclear energy without weapons proliferation, producing it in an inherently safe manner, from fuel that is fairly abundant and cheap, without having to worry about long-term radioactive waste-disposal and -storage, at a cost per MWh that is an estimated 30 to 40 percent lower than that of energy produced from conventional nuclear sources, which would make it far cheaper than energy produced from coal.

All of which makes it more attractive than any other method of energy production on a small to large scale. More on the principles involved: Thorium and the Liquid-Fluoride Reactor: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle

Imagine what could be done to develop world-wide, secure energy production if the $1.2 billion slated for the useless Shell CCS Project were to be injected instead into development efforts for Liquid-Fluoride Thorium Reactor technology.  This is not something totally new, but it is an issue that is being ignored in favor of wild-goose chases like trying to to the impossible, using CO2 as as a thermostat to regulate the global climate.   Take for example this article:

The Telegraph, 29 Aug 2010

Obama could kill fossil fuels overnight with a nuclear dash for thorium

If Barack Obama were to marshal America’s vast scientific and strategic resources behind a new Manhattan Project, he might reasonably hope to reinvent the global energy landscape and sketch an end to our dependence on fossil fuels within three to five years….(Full Story)

The article in The Telegraph is only one of the latest in a long line of such articles during the past couple of years or so.  Still, why would anyone expect the U.S. to take the lead on developing a secure energy future?  The headline for the article could just as well read: “Canada or the U.K. could kill fossil fuels overnight with a nuclear dash for thorium,” or perhaps it should read “China”.

Is it “Big Oil” that calls the shots on this? Who knows?  Someone surely is putting on the brakes.

Nevertheless, the media are given to hype, and there is no conceivable good reason why Liquid-Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) technology would kill fossil fuels overnight.  Cars, trucks, trains and airplanes still have to operate as always, and no one will be able to put an LFTR into everyone’s trunk or into every airplane (although one in every container ship or tanker is a distinct possibility).  Still, what would be wrong with coal-to-liquid-fuel conversion at a cost of $30 a barrel for synthetic crude, using cheap energy produced by a local LFTR that won’t even require an upgrade of the capacity of the transmission-line network to bring the electric energy to the point of crude production?

Would it be wrong to develop Canada’s lead in LFTR technology?  Why not?  We have plenty of thorium and, unlike uranium, more than we can ever use up.

Posted in Shell CCS Project, Energy Issues, Alternative Energy Sources | Print | No Comments »

December 25, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Thanks to wattsupwiththat.com

T. Boone Pickens Abandons U.S. wind power

but Canada is eager to provide a home for the surplus wind turbines he will be left holding.  In a socialist regime it is much easier to lose common sense and ignore economics. After all, the ones making the decisions to lose money are not the ones who will pay for the losses.  The end-consumers will pay.

Check the whole story and the comments that are posted at wattsupwiththat.com.

Posted in Corruption & Fraud, Energy Issues, Alternative Energy Sources | Print | No Comments »

September 10, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Those Deadly, Green Solar Panels

August 21, 2010—Not only does solar energy cost more to produce than
it gives back, but rooftop solar panels are dangerous to your health and
hearth. In Germany, Australia, and the U.S.A. fire departments are
warning of the deadly threat of fighting blazes associated with solar
panels….(Full Story)

That story is referenced in the article accessible through the following link.

Larouche Political Action Committee
Solar Cells versus Plant Cells: In Defense of Chlorophyll
September 8, 2010 • 10:30 AM
by Oyang Teng and Sky Shields

Posted in Propaganda debunked, Alarmist Insanity, Electric Energy Prices, Energy Issues, Explosions & Fires | Print | No Comments »

August 1, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Greenpeace and other Greens have for decades promoted an atmosphere of alarmism that has been the major cause of wide-spread bans on the development of nuclear power generation in many developed nations, while at the same time far more deadly, damaging and excessively-costly alternative energy-generation schemes were rammed through development.

The hype and hysteria fueling that alarmism is being brought to a well-reasoned and practical end in Belarus.

Belarus to Repopulate Chernobyl Exclusion Zone
by Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski
July 28, 2010

On July 23, Novosti, Interfax, Interia, other Belarusian, Russian, and Polish news agencies announced that the government of Belarus decided to resettle hundreds of thousands of people back into the 2,000 ghost-villages in the Chernobyl exclusion zone from which they had been hastily removed 24 years ago.  (Full Story, PDF file, 82kB)

Dr. Jaworowski identifies in his article that,

Calculating by unit of energy produced, the Chernobyl catastrophe caused 0.86 deaths per gigawatt-year of electricity produced, which is 47 times less than for hydroelectric power stations (40 deaths per GWe-year), including the 230,000 fatalities caused by the 1975 collapse of the dam on the Banqiao river in China.

(More on the negative aspects of alternative sources of energy)

Posted in Energy Issues, Propaganda debunked, Alternative Energy Sources, Community & Industry, Explosions & Fires, Emission Incidents & Issues | Print | No Comments »

July 28, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

American Thinker

July 28, 2010

Cap-and-Trade’s Market Failure

By Joseph Bast

Cap and trade died even before Congress shelved legislation…for now. News of the death of cap and trade last month didn’t appear in the obituary section of daily newspapers. Instead, it appeared on page C1 of the July 12 edition of The Wall Street Journal in an article titled “Changes Choke Cap-and-Trade Market.”….

The death of SO2 cap-and-trade in July 2010 should be duly noted by every thoughtful observer. It should signal the defeat of any proposals for CO2 emissions trading. If a CO2 cap-and-trade program were ever enacted in the U.S., its collapse would be spectacular indeed compared to the one that will have foreshadowed it.  (Full Story)

Posted in Energy Issues, Propaganda debunked, Climate Change, Acid Rain, Emission Incidents & Issues, Sulphur-Dioxide | Print | No Comments »

March 27, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Ontario Demand and Market Prices

Note: As of March 27, 2010, at 1:00 PM EDT,  the price was 3.01¢/kWh
Average Weighted Price for March was 2.81¢/kWh
Average Weighted Price since Jan 1, 2010 was 3.30¢/kWh

That low price has not been seen in Alberta for more than ten years now.  The price per kWh in Alberta has been more than twice the price in Ontario ever since Albertans were saddled with deregulated electric energy prices.

Alberta TMR Reference Prices (per MWh; divide by 1,000 to derive price per kWh)

A contract price will help to provide a steady, non-fluctuating rate for electric energy bills.  However, there is not a single energy provider in Alberta who will provide electric energy at close to the low price paid by Ontarians.

For residential users, farmers and small businesses in Alberta, deregulation of the electric energy market was a false promise that, instead of “putting more money back into the pockets of Albertans” (Ed Stelmach *) more than doubled the price of electric energy, beginning Jan. 1, 2000.

* We will continue to monitor energy supplies and pricing and take appropriate action when necessary in the best interest of all Albertans.
The Alberta Government is committed to putting more money back into the pockets of Albertans.

Ed Stelmach (PC), Alberta Minister of Transportation,
MLA Vegreville-Viking, 2002 04 19,
in his response to an open letter on utility pricing policies.
(Source)

Since then, the deregulation of Alberta’s electric energy industry cost Albertans far in excess of $10 billion dollars, much of which added to the windfall revenues gathered by the Alberta Government.

By the way,

Tracking Earth Hour in the Greenest State

27 03 2010 Earth Hour comes to every time zone at 8:30 PM today. Will it make a difference?

Their website says:

On Earth Hour hundreds of millions of people around the world will come together to call for action on climate change by doing something quite simple—turning off their lights for one hour. The movement symbolizes that by working together, each of us can make a positive impact in this fight, protecting our future and that of future generations. Learn more about how Earth Hour began, what we’ve accomplished, and what is in store for 2010.

As Anthony Watts properly identifies at his blog, “…last year, according to the California Independent System Operator (CAISO), Earth Hour made zero difference to the California power consumption. Zero, zip, nada. ” (read more)

Effective propaganda always makes attractive claims, but you can bet your life on one major aspect of it.  The more wide-spread a propaganda campaign ranges, and the more intensive it is, the more money it will cost.  In the end, those costs are always paid by the end consumers.

Posted in Electric Energy Prices, Energy Issues, Energy Purchases | Print | No Comments »