Energy economist Robert Lyman lays out the facts and analysis, and explains why Net Zero goals need a rethink

We occasionally publish comment or reviews with regard to the role of wind power in Ontario’s power supply.

Here, Ottawa-based energy economist Robert Lyman discusses Ontario’s “Net Zero” goals, the facts about electricity supply including wind turbines and battery storage, and concludes that the whole idea needs to be reconsidered. This time without ideology.

An excerpt from Mr. Lyman’s paper, Why Decarbonizing Electricity in Ontario is a Bad Idea:

“Electricity generation in Ontario is primarily from nuclear and hydro-electric sources. Those, plus industrial wind turbines, solar plants and biomass-based generation are such that 94% of the generation is GHG emissions-free. Generation by natural gas-fired plants accounts for six percent of electricity generation emissions and only 3% of Ontario’s GHG emissions.

“Why is there such a focus on eliminating that last 3%? It has nothing to do with the effect of emissions on global temperatures or weather. According to an analysis by the Fraser Institute, if all the of the measures now being pursued by the federal government in its plan for 2030 were implemented, and were not offset by increased emissions by other countries, the result would be a reduction in global temperatures of 0.007 degrees C by 2100. That is seven thousandths of a degree, and it would be the effect of Canada’s total measures. The effects of what Ottawa would or could do is too small to measure. One does not pursue goals like this because they offer measurable benefits; one does so for symbolic or ideological reasons alone.”

Role of the IESO and Net Zero

Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator or IESO has undertaken predictions of power demand, and a Net Zero goal, Mr. Lyman says. He sees problems, not least of which is the absence of any estimate of the impact on Ontario electricity consumers (that means, us).

“The Independent Electricity Systems Operator (IESO) has already provided to the government of Ontario two reports that should have indicated very clearly the problems associated with pursuit of the “net-zero emissions” or “decarbonization” objective. In the Decarbonization and Ontario’s Electricity System report of October 2021 and the Pathways to Decarbonization report of December, 2022, IESO set out its professional assessment of the costs and risks associated with decarbonization by 2050. The following, in our view, are some of the most compelling observations in those reports:

Natural gas generation plays a crucial role in the reliability of the electricity grid. It provides a range of services that no other resource today can provide on its own, including producing large amounts of power to meet high demand and running for extended periods when other resources are not available.

• Phasing out natural gas generation by 2030 would entail a capital investment of more than $27 billion and bring the cost of carbon reduction in the electricity industry to at least $464 per tonne (far above any reasonable estimate of the “social cost of carbon”).
• A “Pathways scenario” to decarbonization by 2050 projects a system designed to meet winter peaks that are almost three times higher than those we experience today, and thus require an additional 69,000 MW of “non-emitting” supply and 5,000 MW in demand reduction from conservation. (Comment: “Conservation” is sometime a euphemism for demand destruction, the process whereby consumers are forced by higher prices to reduce their use.)
• The scenario includes an additional 17,800 MW of nuclear supply, and additional 17,600 MW of wind and 650 MW of new hydroelectric, plus an additional 2,000 MW of long-duration storage added in the late 2030s.
• The cost of building out the bulk 500 kV and 230 kV transmission systems to meet the Pathways scenario is estimated to be between $20 billion and $50 billion. This construction will pose “substantial” siting challenges. (Comment: This is the understatement of the century.)
• The bulk system expansion needed to enable decarbonization, including transmission, in this scenario would require an investment in the range of $375 billion to $425 billion.

The IESO reports did not include an estimate of the rate impact on electricity consumers, which was buried in an appendix.”

Wind power: expensive and dependent on foreign sources

Wind power has been very costly for Ontario, Mr. Lyman writes, mostly because of subsidies and “must-take” contracts for power. In light of a new economic world order he says a rethink is needed because of the cost of wind power:

“A non-costed but important disadvantage of increased reliance on wind turbines relates to the security consequences of increasing reliance on imports from insecure sources for the materials needed for wind turbines and batteries. The Global Wind Blade Supply Chain Update for 2020 ranks China as the largest producing country for wind turbines.”

Read the full paper by Robert Lyman here: