Evaluating the merits of small wind turbines

A recent NY times article reports that there has been a rise of small wind turbines in the U.S. and Britain:

"In a report to be released later this month, the American Wind Energy Association says that the market for small wind turbines in the United States grew 26 percent last year — faster than in prior years. And in Britain, a report in April found growth in the year ending in December 2010 even higher, at 65 percent — making it the “greatest year on year increase” for the small-turbine industry, according to the report."

Through reading articles about wind energy over the years, and through listening to Chris talk about it a lot in 4th year undergrad, it appears that any successful wind energy market needs strong incentives. Such incentives may include feed-in-tariff programs that are being used in Britain, Ontario and most recently, Nova Scotia.

I think wind is a very promising renewable technology and it's great to see it taking off in different parts of the world.

Electric Trolley Buses in Winnipeg



Image credit: http://bc.transport-action.ca/images/TL_2007_NFI_E60LF_2533.jpg

A recent visit to Vancouver had me riding public transit nearly every day. Much of Vancouver's bus system is actually an electric trolley bus system, where normal looking buses are powered by overhead wires delivering electricity. Tim, somewhat of a growing expert in these things, told me this has a lot to do with the abundance of cheap and 'green' electricity available to Vancouver from British Columbia's massive hydroelectric resources. Which got me thinking: could this work in Winnipeg?

Winnipeg is by far the largest centre in Manitoba, a province that generates nearly every kilowatt from hydroelectric resources. Like in B.C., a government monopoly, Manitoba Hydro, owns and operates the electricity system, keeping prices low and even generating more electricity than is needed in the province. It is a low-emissions and plentiful resource. Nearly all the public transit in the city is made up of buses and receives moderately popular ridership, particularly in those parts of the population -- a significant number in Winnipeg -- with lower incomes. And as oil and gas prices continue to climb, why not take advantage of the plentiful hydro resource?

Some of it might be explained by looking at Winnipeg's public transit history. Like many cities in North America, its public transit system emerged at the end of the 19th century primarily made up of horse-drawn carriages. Spurred on by the loss of its horse fleet to a fire and the inevitable progress of technology, the city began incorporating electric streetcars (trolleys) into the system, a network that would look somewhat similar to the trolley bus system described earlier. This would eventually be scrapped in the 1960s when cost overruns and competition gave way to taxis, cars and bus service, which Winnipeg has largely relied on ever since. The infrastructure of overhead wires was removed and little remains of the old trolley system.

Winnipeg has benefited from the evolution of other cities' transit systems. Throughout the 1980s, Winnipeg snagged 50 diesel-powered buses from Calgary and Edmonton as the cities expanded their light rail systems. More recently, the city has upgraded its fleet and flirted with the expansion to diesel-electric hybrid buses. With an already large and upgraded fleet, it would seem unwise to invest immediately into an electric trolley bus system.

History aside, how viable might a system like this even be in Winnipeg? The city is painfully cold in the winters and receives considerable snowfall. The former is not as much of a problem, but snowfall has a tendency to knock off the connection between the buses and the wires above. More importantly, heavy snowfall might force buses to reroute and detours can be exceptionally long when you're dependent on an overhead wire. Electric trolley buses, too, are known as particularly advantageous in hilly cities -- like Vancouver and San Francisco -- because of the high torque in electric motors, but in a city which's highest point is a landfill, this isn't quite as much of an issue. And it ain't cheap to install a complex infrastructure of overhead cables.



Image credit: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4004/4585122508_b1c358ba49.jpg

The city's most recent transit developments also help to explain the situation. In an effort to significantly expand and modernize its transit system, the city has begun construction of a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system, connecting major corridors throughout the city. BRT systems usually have roads exclusively used by buses for high speed service, frequent service and when having to join regular traffic, transit priority signals and diamond lanes give them a boost. Anyone familiar with Ottawa or Miami's public transit would have an idea as to how this works. It is an expensive ordeal, and in a city whose budget is not outrageously affluent -- a light rail proposal fell by the wayside because of cost -- any new infrastructure, regardless of future savings, could be a real pain in the ass.

With the information above, it is sensible why the electric trolley bus system hasn't taken off in Winnipeg. But with Manitoba's electricity resources at hand, there must be ways to incorporate it into the public transit system. Sure, a full fledged system around the city might be unnecessary, costly and problematic, but the installation of trolley bus systems would make sense on straightforward and popular routes, like the express routes across the city and especially the new BRT routes. The new buses travelling those roads may very well be diesel-electric hybrids, but a simple network of cables overtop these straightforward transitways could pay off in spades in the future.

Eco-Friendly School in Bali

Image credit: gizfactory.com

"Understanding the current and future needs of our planet it is extremely vital that we move to renewal sources of energy in all spheres of our day to day lives. Keeping in lieu with this, a beautiful eco-friendly school has come up in Bali. The idea behind the school is to empower global citizens and green innovators who are inspired to take responsibility for the sustainability of the world".

Read more here.

Environmental Challenges and Opportunities in 2010

Happy New Year! Many thanks to our readers, followers and guest post authors who continue to support and read Enviro Boys. Many more posts to come in 2011!

A blog post from the NY Times' Green Blog highlights the many environmental challenges and opportunities of 2010. Most of the examples are from the United States but there is discussion of Russia's summer heat wave and the US senate's postponed decision on whether to approve a controversial 2,000-mile, $7 billion pipeline project to deliver crude oil from Canadian oil sands to refineries on the Gulf Coast of Texas.

Here is a highlight that caught my interest and is more promising than it is depressing:

Tigers and Bears: With major reports on biodiversity all showing an accelerating loss of species on land and in the oceans, attention was focused most closely on polar bears, whose sea ice habitat is melting for longer periods almost every year. A team of climate scientists and biologists is promoting the idea of setting aside a “sea ice refuge” — a swath of the Arctic from northwest Greenland west through northern Canada where the ice remains thickest. Another study predicted that polar bears would breed with grizzlies, creating hybrids that are less resilient. Meanwhile, fears of the extinction of the wild tiger prompted a summit of sorts in Moscow, at which officials agreed to a goal of doubling the number of wild tigers — now about 3,200 — by 2022.

Read the blog post here.

Key message: We have a long way to go on the environmental front. While it is still pretty common to dismiss the ominous nature of climate change -- especially in a time when people are more concerned about finding a job -- the reality of our environmental challenges are significant and require meaningful action. Heat waves in Russia, water droughts in the US Southwest and renewable energy opportunities may seem distant from you but everything is interconnected and closer than you think. Always think about your impact on the environment and ask yourself how you can conserve and lower your ecological footprint.

A Wind Energy Update in Canada

Image credit:
http://top-10-list.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/wind-energy.jpg

I love renewable energy but I usually don't blog about it. While I am relatively informed about wind energy (thanks to Chris and his comprehensive 100-page honour's thesis on wind energy deployment in Canada) I thought I would write a post about it.

The Globe and Mail (don't worry, I read other news sources too) had a special information feature on climate change and the environment a few days ago. The articles were written by representatives from several groups and institutes including Alberta's Pembina Institute, the University of Calgary's Institute for Sustainable Energy, Environment and Economy, the David Suzuki Foundation and an article from the CEO of Siemens AG.

One of the articles discussed how wind energy was the world's fastest growing source of electricity generation in the U.S. and the EU in 2009. Canada, they argue, has a long way to go in fully developing its wind energy capacity. Wind energy in Canada has enough power to ostensibly generate at least 20% of Canada's electricity by 2025. That's huge!

Alberta is currently looking at renewable sources of energy, like wind, to alleviate its dependence on dirty coal-based electricity. According to the report from the Pembina Institute, the generating potential of wind in Alberta was estimated at 64,000 megawatts (MW). To put that in perspective, if you look at the IESO wind tracker located at the top right corner of this blog, 127 MW is enough electricity to power the City of Newmarket (population about 80,000). Just imagine what 64,000 MW could do.

In Canada, electricity generation is responsible for 17% of all greenhouse gas pollution, more than that produced by all of the cars on Canada's road. Both the Pembina Institute and the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) are strong proponents for this renewable energy but continuously face obstacles from organizations and wind-opposing folks that Chris has talked about in the past.

It has been reported that a typical wind turbine in Canada produces enough power to meet the needs of 450 homes. Canada ranks 11th in the world in terms of wind energy-based electricity generation. Who are the leaders? 20% of Denmark's electricity is from wind sources, in Spain it is 13%, in Portugal, 12% and Ireland 9%.

Robert Hornung from CanWEA says that when measured as a percentage of total electricity production, Canada ranks significantly lower generating about 1.5% right now. Policy is the big challenge. We need incentives he argues. The federal production incentive program for wind energy is coming to an end. "Without a stable, clear-cut and long-term strategy to facilitate wind energy development, it will be hard to attract wind energy investment in Canada".

The key message is that federal government needs to send the right signals to renewable energy markets that demonstrate the need and importance of wind energy in this country. Alberta is constantly criticized for its oil sands industry and heavy dependence on coal based electricity. Alberta has a great opportunity to pursue this technology right now to earn some green points. But other provinces must also continue to increase their wind energy potential with the help of government incentives and strong renewable energy markets.

On a promising note, the International Energy Agency predicts that $20 trillion (US dollars) will be invested in renewable energy projects worldwide in the next 22 years. C'mon Canada, this is your chance to shine!

Harnessing power from our ocean waves

Image credit: The Future of Things

A recent post from the New York Times' Green Blog provides an optimistic overview of an up-and-coming renewable energy called tidal power. In short, tidal power converts the energy of tides into electricity or other useful forms of power. The tidal forces produced by the Moon and Sun, in combination with Earth's rotation, are responsible for the generation of the tides. The image above is a tidal power generator which simply draws energy from ocean currents in a way similar to how wind turbines draw energy from wind.

Two excerpts from the Green blog:

"Tides are particularly attractive sources of power because they are predictable, unlike sunshine and wind. Not surprisingly, countries with rough seas like Britain and Portugal are leading the way in exploring ocean power".

"The European Energy Association estimates that, globally, the oceans could yield over 100,000 terawatt hours a year if the technology to harness that power can be perfected. That is more than five times the electricity the world uses in a year".

Read more about this form of renewable energy here.

Want cheap energy? Get prisoners to generate it...

The new coalition British government is in trouble. They have inherited a massive deficit and are looking to cut as many costs as possible.

The Globe & Mail reports that instead of figuring it out themselves, they have opened the floor to suggestions from members of the public. Among the thousands of options thrown out there are ditching the monarchy, selling off the Queen's swans for meat -- she owns most of the swans in the U.K. -- and even significantly cutting foreign aid. But quite a few suggestions involve using Britain's 100,000 prisoners, specifically getting them to generate electricity on treadmills and rowing machines.

A crazy idea? The Globe thinks so, but I disagree. Using fitness equipment to generate electricity is not a brand new idea. Some gyms throughout Europe and North America have already adapted their cardio machines to generate electricity for the building. After all, there is a lot of energy being used that could be captured as electricity. A hotel in Denmark even offers its guests a $36 food voucher to ride a stationary bicycle for 15 minutes and produce 10 watts of electricity. Sign me up. In comparison, Ontario's feed-in tariff offers less than a dollar for 100 times as much electricity from renewable energy projects. I think I know where the better deal is...

And prisoners typically work out a lot more than most other members of societies, so the potential is there. Whether or not it would produce enough electricity is another issue altogether. And how much would it cost to set up the necessary infrastructure to run a system like this? Another question one might raise is if prisoners are forced and scheduled to work out under this system, or whether working out will remain voluntary?

It is doubtful to get far off the ground, but it's nice to hear that when pursestrings get tight, clean energy get a little cooler.

A concerning glimpse into the future of Canada's hydroelectric sector

While clean energy companies throughout Ontario are jumping for joy in response to the province's renewable energy policy, one of Canada's largest private hydroelectric firms is feeling a pinch. Brookfield Power owns and operates more than 850 MW of hydroelectric energy projects throughout northern Ontario and plenty more in other parts of Canada and the United States. Despite the dependability of hydro compared to other 'green' technologies -- it has a typical capacity factor between 50% and 80%, meaning most hydro projects will be running at full capacity 50%-80% of the time, compared with wind and solar that are around 35% and 13%, respectively -- Brookfield Power's production has fallen 40%-50%. Yikes.

The drop has been blamed primarily on an unordinarily dry year leading to very low water levels in northern Ontario. Annual variations in water levels are not uncommon, but as Brookfield's situation indicates, it can be pretty damaging economically: profits have fallen almost 50%. In stark contrast, the prairies have seen much higher precipitation levels than normal this year.

Some might be able to shake off one bad year, but as climate change threatens the historical predictability of Canadian weather, the Canadian hydroelectric industry could be in trouble. And as provinces like BC, Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba continue to expand their hydro generating capacity, you might wonder whether they're getting a bit nervous.

Desalination: The Aussie Way

It has been a while since we’ve discussed desalination. Desalination is a process that uses reverse osmosis to convert salt water into fresh drinking water. Our last desalination post featured San Diego and its long-term ambitions to expand desalination due to water shortages and the rising costs of importing water from northern California.

Australia has been desalinating water since 2006, when Perth opened the nation’s first desalination plant. In one of the country’s biggest infrastructure projects in history, Australia’s five largest cities are spending $13.2 billion on desalination plants. Such enthusiasm for aggressive expansion has been motivated by intense droughts across the country. The executive director of the Water Services Association of Australia described the billions of dollars as “the cost of adapting to climate change”. Droughts have been intensified by climate change and desalination will make a significant contribution to the country’s water supply and hopefully for contingency situations when droughts come again in the future.

There are critics of course. One of the main arguments against such an expansion is that Australia’s population is not growing as fast as the past government projected. Called “Big Australia”, the previous government’s projected that the population would rise to 36 million in 2050, from 22 million now.

The focus of attention appears to be on Queensland, the nation’s fastest growing region. Queensland suffered an intense drought from 2000 to 2009. A desalination plant in this area supplies 6 percent of the region’s water needs and has the capacity to deliver 20 percent. The drought did lead to other incentives such as subsidizing the purchase of home water tanks to capture rainwater. A number of dams were built, along with wastewater recycling facilities and pipes. Thus, Queensland has reacted to water shortages mainly through what we call “hard-path approaches” which I have argued in previous posts (and in my honours thesis) is not a holistic approach to water management.

With Queensland’s jubilation for desalination construction, other cities like Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide have followed suit. I must stress that the power needed to remove salt from seawater accounts for up to 50% of the cost of desalination, and Australia relies on coal, a major emitter of greenhouse gases, to generate most of its electricity. To make smart progress on desalination and to avoid stiff opposition from tough critics, I think Australia must do two things:

1) Develop a system whereby excess water produced from major desalination plants is sold to municipalities without such desalination plants (there are many drought prone regions that could benefit from having a contingency water supply that desalination could provide). The costs must be transparent and distributed equally and at a low cost to those cities. Indeed, desalination projects need to slow down and the government must focus on fair distribution with an adequate amount of “contingency water” stored in reservoirs for imminent droughts.

2) Seeing as desalination will be the solution for Australia’s future water supply, and the fact that desalination is powered mostly through coal, the Australian government must focus on expanding renewable energy projects such as solar energy. Given that Brisbane (the capital of Queensland) receives over 3000 hours of sunshine every year, the region’s desalination plant would benefit from renewable sources like solar to ease pressure on coal and reduce aggregate CO2 emissions.

Key message: Australia will become (if it isn’t already) the world’s biggest user of desalination. With climate change uncertainty and the frequency of droughts, it must focus on conserving water for contingency situations. It does not have to expand desalination plants but instead focus more on practical and sustainable goals like powering them through renewable energy and expanding water conservation education in elementary and secondary schools.

Progress on Solar Power in Hong Kong

The largest solar power system in Hong Kong has been unveiled at Lamma power station, which can maintain adequate power output under high temperatures or on cloudy days. It is being operated by Hongkong Electric. The thin film used in the system uses less silicon and is more environmentally friendly. The panels can generate a total of 550 kilowatts, or 1% of the overall capacity of the 3,700-megawatt plant, which uses coal as its main fuel source.

The HK$23 million project ($3 million Canadian) will reduce HK's carbon dioxide emissions by 520 tonnes a year. Hong Kong's annual carbon dioxide emission output is about 39,000 tonnes (as measured in 2007). So this project will decrease annual CO2 output by 1.3% - a number that will increase over time with more renewable energy projects such as this one. It is expected to generate enough power to supply the needs of 150 families (with four household members).

Could green energy take a hit from Ontario's government probe?

The Ontario government is in trouble. Again.

The Ontario Provincial Police is conducting a criminal investigation in some dirty business dealings between public sector staff and private sector firms. The public sector staff in question belong to the Ontario Realty Corporation, a corporation that lies under the authority of the Ministry of Energy & Infrastructure.

Uh oh. For proponents of green energy in Ontario, this could be worrying. A friend of mine, SH, posits that if any of the alleged improper business dealings are focused on the province's renewable energy program, the whole green energy movement in Ontario could be sunk beyond repair.

There is a chance that renewable energy could be involved. The government has given plenty of exclusive renewable deals to major private firms, most notably Samsung. The rhetorical push for community energy has not been followed by approvals for such projects, while private sector firms are receiving everything they need. These events have pissed off a lot of people. But have they been illegal? Time will tell.

If so, it is likely that green energy in Ontario would take a massive hit. The streamlining of approvals, reduction of effective public participation and the provincial supersession of municipal authority under the Green Energy Act have triggered opposition exponentially. Try to find an area in rural Ontario where opposition to a wind farm is not strong. Politically, the Progressive Conservatives have called for a moratorium on wind turbine development.

As ambitious as the government's program is, it has done much to help their popularity. This is far from the government's only concern. People are already angry about the HST, the deficit, scandals at E-Health and OLG and a plethora of different issues. Even other green programs have taken a hit, most recently the new Eco Fee, resulting in the government and Stewardship Ontario pointing fingers at one another.

Let's hope that green energy isn't involved in another government scandal, especially a criminal one.

The wacky world of wind energy opposition...

 So what do you hate about wind turbines?

Are they too imposing? Too loud? Do they kill too many birds and bats? Maybe you're worried that the low-frequency vibrations will cause headaches, faint or even cancers? Or maybe you're pissed off that the Ontario government is happy to give wind developers extra revenue directly from your wallet?

I bet it's because a list of bird mortalities from Ontario's Wolfe Island reads strikingly similar to a list of the dead at Auschwitz.

Sadly, this is an actual -- and outrageously distasteful -- comparison I have come across this summer from the representative of a major anti-wind community group. The development of wind energy in Ontario has generated a lot of opposition to wind. Unfortunately, passionate opposition brings out the worst in people. Or, as the case may be, brings out the worst people.

Ridiculous claims are not uncommon in the growing world of wind opposition. I have personally come across a story from a woman who claimed that her friend, who lives next to an industrial wind turbine, had to shovel up hundreds of dead birds every few mornings from her yard. Sure. Others I have spoken to have come across people who compare the impact of new wind turbines with the rape and murder of community members. Some of the members of these groups even suspect that the OPP and RCMP have tapped their phones and track their emails. Something tells me that they're a little too busy with real life. Oh, and the G20.

Unfortunately, these quacks are giving wind opposition a bad name. If a project is proposed, the looney tunes will headline the opposition, stirring up all sorts of anger, but ultimately eroding credibility and limiting the role of healthy, rational conversation and debate. The right wing Tea Party Movement in the United States is comparable.

You see, not all wind development is good. There is a good way and a bad way. Right now, lots of developers are doing it the bad way. Half-hearted public meetings; total ignorance of the local community; scoffs at concerned local governments and a purely economic focus. They, however, can not be entirely blamed for this. The provincial government, through the Green Energy Act, has made it perfectly legal to hold marginal public meetings and ignore municipal governments. In fact, it's almost encouraged, in the name of streamlined approvals and preventing any more climate change.

The major pro-wind groups, like the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA), immediately associate every bit of opposition with the wild claims held by the quacks I talked about earlier. Moreover, both CanWEA and the government have created an atmosphere of extremes: either you support wind power with us or you're against it along with the Holocaust comparison folks.

This isn't fair. Just because wind energy represents all sorts of good like 'green energy', energy independence and renewability, does not mean we can simply throw opposing arguments to the ground. There needs to be a reasonable conversation and the burden for such a transition falls on both sides. The government needs to stop being so antagonistic or it's going to find itself deeper in what is already a deep hole of political turmoil, and the crazy anti-wind people need to shut up and stay out of it. Do you really think anyone is going to listen to you if you compare wind turbine development with the Holocaust?

A professor at Trent once told me -- in a rather accusational way, I might add -- that I am pro-wind. I corrected her and told her that I am actually only pro-wind if it is done right. That means effective public consultation and even participation, designing the projects appropriately and making sure the risks and benefits of the project are distributed equally with both developers and the surrounding community. I'm not a gung-ho, wind at all costs kind of guy and I don't believe she is a crazy anti-wind whacko.

There is a right way to do it and a wrong way. Let's try to figure out the right way.

Image Credit: Soul Online

Not every windy area needs wind energy...

Wind energy is all the rage. If most proponents of renewable energy development had their way, wind turbines would be put up in every region of the world. Governments would be encouraged to implement wind energy systems as quickly as possible and provide significant economic incentives (such as feed-in-tariffs) at high cost. The Al Gores of the world would think this great. Why on earth isn't everybody doing it?

I also thought this way up until I started doing work on my Honours Thesis earlier this year. The health and aesthetic concerns of wind turbines aside, it seemed odd to me that more governments in Canada weren't jumping on the wind energy bandwagon in quite the same fashion that Ontario was. Ontario, after all, recently introduced the Green Energy Act, which includes very high rates provided for generators of wind-sourced electricity.

My thesis included a study of Manitoba, Alberta and Nova Scotia in addition to Ontario. Although each province had significant wind resources -- it is quite windy -- some have a lot more wind energy than others. In Manitoba particularly the rates were quite low and much of it can easily be explained by its current electricity system. Hydroelectricity makes up 98% of all electricity generated in Manitoba and the province generates much more than it uses. Hydro, although not considered green by some, is generally emissions-free, extremely reliable and long-lasting. With the exception of diversifying its generation makeup, Manitoba has no real reason to build wind turbines.

The other three provinces have currently and historically relied on fossil fuel-based electricity generation, primarily from coal, natural gas and even petroleum. In response to climate change and the desire for renewable energy technologies -- and in Ontario's case, reducing air pollution -- these provinces have had considerable incentive to move away from fossil-fuel generation and towards wind energy. It makes sense for them, even if it means putting lots of money into it.

For places like Manitoba that don't really need wind energy, they shouldn't invest into it. Just because wind energy is the trendy thing to do with energy these days does not mean it belongs everywhere.

Is Ontario quietly walking away from its renewable energy targets?

Ontario is driving the country's most ambitious renewable energy incentive program; its Feed-In Tariff that came as part of the landmark Green Energy Act. As with any ambitious government policy, equally ambitious targets accompany the program itself.

Several months ago I came across Ontario's new renewable energy targets under its FIT program and found them to be well beyond anything I had seen before. Ontario had committed to 15,000 MW of new renewable energy by 2025 and even hoped to exceed the targets. To put that in context, its current generating capacity is roughly 35,000 MW, primarily made up of nuclear, gas, coal and hydro.

Because solar projects are not usually very large and relatively few biogas projects are developed, most of the 15,000 MW would come from wind and hydro projects. Now, to be clear, 15,000 MW of hydro projects would produce a lot more electricity than 15,000 MW of wind projects because the wind doesn't blow all the time. But if even a third of that target is met by wind, it would mean a minimum of 2,500 new wind turbines scattered throughout the province. Regardless of whether or not you think that's a good thing, that is an immense number of turbines. It's actually more than you'd find all over Canada, Ontario currently included.

But I came across something very curious the other day. While looking to confirm those targets for my Honours Thesis, they were nowhere to be found. The government website I had used before was no longer available and a thorough review of the government's different department/agency websites (the Ministry of Energy, Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario Power Authority) brought up nothing.

Instead, the only solid numbers I could find were estimates of job creation and what Ontario has already done since October. In thinking I was perhaps going a little crazy, I went in search of these targets elsewhere. Luckily, I was able to find a few sites (here, here and here) that made reference to the government announcement of the targets.

Why these targets aren't available is quite a mystery. It is, of course, possible that I am simply too daft to find them, but I find it unlikely. At this point I won't begin to speculate further, but I feel that it might be appropriate to follow up on it.

I'll try to keep people updated...

Looking ahead in 2010…

Copenhagen Conference = millions of emissions released into atmosphere + millions of dollars spent + non-legally binding targets + more cynicism in the climate change sphere.

Not to go on rant about the troubles and challenges of Copenhagen, but I vehemently believe that global targets on emissions are too hard to implement! For a long time, I have argued that cities need to play a much more active role in combating climate change. 50% of the world’s population now live in urban environments- growing cities around the world have their own problems with pollution, transportation and waste management, but they also have innovation, ideas and talent.

I hope this decade witnesses a rise in municipal leadership; especially in the Canadian environment. In Canada, we know that energy consumption and emissions reduction are subject to decisions by all three levels of government; the federal government sets environmental standards and impact assessments, provinces have constitutional authority over natural resources, and municipalities directly influence transportation, land use and housing. We should be trying to overcome this inherent complexity in multilevel governance relationships within Canada, specifically over climate change.

If cities were given more power and funding from the feds (because cities have no money) we could very well see some critical changes in our transportation systems, air pollution strategies, waste diversion programs like recycling and composting and housing design that incorporates energy efficiency and renewable resources. All of these endeavours are possible to administer at the city level, insofar as our municipal leaders actively engage with the private sector to advance change on the environment and economy. There are countless examples of cities that have gone the extra mile to address climate change, remember “wisdom way solar village”?

Also, whatever happen to energy audit programs that were once successful in cities such as Waterloo? Energy audit programs are just another example of how cities can significantly address climate change. Homeowners would love to learn about how they can live comfortably while concomitantly cutting down on energy usage.

I think cities need to have access to funding, especially for administering energy audits to ensure that the actions stimulated by the incentive are most appropriate or provide the best return for homeowner investment. Local climate action from cities and municipalities are indispensable in the fight against climate change. Cities must start forming partnerships with their utility companies, consulting firms and other stakeholders to share the costs and increase local awareness. This is how citizens at the local level can be more engaged and hence more willing to make changes to their everyday lives.

Key message: Progress on climate change action requires local participation where people feel engaged and learn about practical ways to do the right thing for the planet. This may be buying a more efficient dishwasher, making solar energy more viable or having access to waste diversion programs for example. The interests at the grassroots can only be sustained if the city is willing to provide resources, incentives and enact policies that are progressive for our planet.

Carbon pricing vs. feed-in-tariffs: How should we really be spurring development of renewables in Canada?

Much praise has been given for Ontario’s Feed-in-Tariff program and its potential to develop renewable power generation to levels comparable in countries like Germany and Denmark, where FITs have also been used. But some have commented that a carbon pricing system (either through a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system) would be far more effective. They are only half right.

They are right because a FIT is very expensive. Indeed, Ontario’s Green Energy Act has allocated $5B over the next five years, much of which will be put towards its FIT program. A carbon pricing system, on the other hand, is relatively cheap to maintain and (if done properly) a revenue generator. These people are also right because it effects traditional energy production, specifically fossil fuel generation like gas, oil and coal. The price of generation of these technologies increases and makes renewables more economically attractive. Moreover, for those with a particular appetite for freedom of choice, it doesn’t let governments pick and choose the technologies it wants. Indeed, the market decides.

In his book, Heat, George Monbiot struggles to find out how renewables alone could supply our current demand for energy. In short, they can’t. A carbon-pricing scheme would make energy conservation more attractive because we’d have to pay extra for wasting energy. Furthermore, even if we can’t get to the energy demand levels required for purely renewable power generation, a carbon-pricing system could make carbon capture and storage technologies economically viable without massive public subsidies.

But they are wrong because a carbon-pricing scheme alone won’t solve the problem of developing renewables. First, if the market has its way, only the cheapest renewables would get built, most likely hydro and on-shore wind power. But several other technologies would get left out in the dust. Solar PV, wave, tidal, offshore wind and even some biofuels wouldn’t be able to compete. This is not to say these technologies are not beneficial, but rather that they are immature. Considering that many in the renewable energy field believe we need a diverse mix of all technologies to properly reap the rewards of renewable energy, a carbon-pricing scheme might leave us with only a few options.

This would be fine if there were moving water and windy areas everywhere. But some places are very sunny and dry, some have massive tidal flows and other places really, really hate wind turbines. Specific technologies need to be brought up to par and sometimes a direct and exclusive financial incentive (ex. A technology-specific FIT) is necessary. And if you’re smart about it, like Ontario is trying to be, you can invest in the technology now and export it to the rest of the world for a nice chunk of change. Look at Vestas in Denmark, for example.

Now, it wouldn’t really matter what technology you picked if the carbon price was high enough. As long as a technology can make some money, it will be put into use. The problem is that we would need some very high carbon prices.

According to a New Energy Finance study mentioned in The Economist, onshore wind requires a carbon price of US$38/tonne to become economically viable without subsidy. This is not an outlandish price. Carbon taxes in some European countries are over US$100/tonne, so it isn’t politically impossible. But before you get too excited, let’s remember that Stephane Dion’s Green Shift platform ran alongside a $10/tonne tax on carbon and it was demolished. Even the relative success story of British Columbia’s carbon tax is fraught with political opposition, and it’s only hovering around the $15/tonne mark these days. The only large-scale attempt at setting a carbon price is the European Union’s Emissions-Trading-Scheme, which has the price set at US$22/tonne. These prices might eventually get around the $40/tonne mark, but that won’t do it for the more expensive technologies. Offshore wind requires a price of US$136/tonne and solar PV US$196/tonne. You want to set a carbon price to make that economically viable? Good luck.

But this entire post has offered us a false choice. What we really need is both a carbon price and subsidy programs. A price on carbon is absolutely necessary, even if it is as small as $10/tonne. It will at least give some indication to industry and consumers so they can include the carbon costs in their accounts. And any revenues taken from it can go towards subsidies. What’s really needed is the political will and more importantly, public recognition and understanding of why a price on carbon is needed and the necessity of renewable energy technologies.

Finally, I’ll end with a piece of advice frequently used by George Monbiot. No matter what we do to help out renewables or fight climate change, it’s all worthless if we keep feeding the fossil fuel industry with tax breaks and subsidies. Monbiot equates it to filling yourself up on fatty, unhealthy foods, but adding a salad and not expecting to gain any weight. But right now, we’re getting pretty fat.

Domestic content requirements might be a pain, but Ontario needs them...

Ontario’s Feed-in-Tariff (FIT) program is one of the world’s most ambitious clean energy subsidy programs. Indeed, some of the rates it will pay for renewable electricity can hardly be found anywhere else in the world.

Of course, Ontario is not a pioneer in this regard. Unsurprisingly, the Europeans – who seem to do everything better than us in North America, at least when it comes to energy – have been expanding their renewable industries using FITs for a few decades. Wind and solar have seen significant expansion in Germany & Denmark using this economic tool, despite the relative lack of the necessary energy inputs (i.e. they are not the windiest or sunniest places on Earth).

Spain also toyed with a FIT to expand its solar photovoltaic industry in 2007. It offered 44 euro cents per kWh produced (~ CDN$0.66) and expected a growth of installed capacity around the 400 MW mark by 2010. The FIT was intended for projects of less than 100 kW, but developers quickly found a loophole and built several modules of 100 kW installations. Before the Spanish government knew what hit them, approximately 3 GW had been built and a lot more money needed to be doled out than had been allotted. The program fell apart shortly thereafter as the government lowered the FIT price significantly and ultimately made any new solar PV development uneconomical.

But it wasn’t economics alone that killed the program. Politically, it was a less than stellar subsidy. The FIT had no limits on where the solar PV panels had to come from and as a result the FIT unintentionally provided a boon to the German and Chinese manufacturers of solar panels, which lead the world in solar PV construction. While it also aided the domestic manufacturers in Spain, the Spanish government found itself footing the bill for a program that was helping its competing manufacturers in Germany & China, whose governments got to benefit free of charge.

That is the thing with subsidies. Since the taxpayers of a country ultimately pay for subsidies, they should be the ones who benefit. And politically, they are nice and easy. It is much easier to hand money out than take it away. So sometimes the policies guiding the subsidy are not completely thought out.

Ontario is aiming not to make this mistake. First, it is not guaranteeing FITs for every renewable producer. You first have to sign a contract with the government, thus allowing them to keep track of installed capacity. But what is more, it has placed stringent domestic content requirements on its subsidized solar PV projects. Currently, 50% of a project has to be from Ontario – this can include everything from the actual panels themselves, the installers, the feasibility analyses or even the bolts tying the panels down. According to some solar PV installers I’ve spoken with in Ontario, projects can barely meet the requirements, almost exclusively because there are no major PV panel manufacturers in Ontario. The idea with the requirement is to attract a manufacturer to set up shop in Ontario knowing the market will be there to sell. What will really provide the incentive is that in 2011, 60% of a project will need to be domestically sourced, which without a major domestic manufacturer will be impossible.

One company, Canadian Solar – which, despite its name and Canadian ownership does nothing in Canada -- has already answered the call and will be building a multimillion dollar plant capable of producing 200 MW of panels annually. But like Rome, these plants don’t get built in a day.

For now, it is a pain in the ass for solar PV developers in Ontario, but it is absolutely necessary if Ontario is to get the biggest bang for its buck and kick any free riders off its subsidy train.

Happy Holidays.

It's not always windy outside...

You may have noticed the spinning wind turbine on the front page of this blog. It displays the total amount of energy being produced by Ontario's wind power system every hour of every day.

The graphic -- which is courtesy of Ontario's Independent Electricity Systems Operator (IESO) -- provides a very good example of perhaps the greatest barrier of wind: capacity factor. You'll notice that sometimes several hundred Megawatts (MW) of electricity is produced during the hour and the turbine spins quite quickly, while at other times (like as I write this post) it is less than 100 MW.

Ontario has nearly 1,100 MW of installed capacity of wind power. That basically means it has the potential to produce 1,100 MWh of power each hour for the length of its existence. The trouble, of course, is that this is only theoretical. What the tag might say on the turbine is not what it will produce in reality.

The main reason, of course, is because it is not always windy outside. As a result, sometimes you get the turbines sitting motionless and, despite having nearly 1,100 MW in generating capacity, only producing 35 MW on a day like today. Indeed, I've seen the turbine as Exhibition Place in Toronto lie motionless more than I've seen it moving.

In reality, wind turbines are only about 20-30% efficient from what they are capable of producing. Add to that the inevitable loss of electricity from transmission and distribution and wind doesn't look super hot.

This is not a criticism of wind power, but rather a focus on the need to understand how it works. When its proponents speak about its wide potential, they sometimes exaggerate its true potential, which is often more limited. Indeed, we could toss thousands of turbines over Ontario that would replace the installed capacity of the current electricity generation system. But when it's not windy, the amount of electricity produced would be negligible.

Moreover, because of its variability, wind power alone will not fix our energy problem. And neither will solar because it isn't always sunny and we don't have terrific battery technology. But the combination of these technologies, along with several other renewables and a focus on conservation could fix our system.

Carbon credits & Ontario's FIT...

Ontario's uber-progressive Feed-in-Tariff program is wonderful for someone wanting to produce renewable energy. Solar PV producers can get as much as $0.802 per kWh produced, which is almost twenty times greater than the market rate for electricity in Ontario.

At the same time, much talk is happening provincially, nationally and globally about a possible cap-and-trade system: Ontario has mumbled about a potential interprovincial program with Quebec; Stephen Harper's government is bound to join up with any system that comes out of the American government (which I assure you, will be a cap-and-trade system); and the climate change summit in Copenhagen in just a few days will have a large cap-and-trade facet to it. For renewable energy project developers, this could mean cashing in on the carbon credits they'd receive for their "emissions-free" projects. They could sell their credits to the less-green folks out there.

Renewable energy developers should be licking their chops. Serious money could be made from two different angles.

But hold your horses. Ontario's independent energy manager, the Ontario Power Authority (OPA & delivery agent of the Feed-in-Tariff) has a nice little clause written into the FIT contract. Under section 2.10 of the contract it reads that "the supplier hereby transfers and assigns to...the OPA who thereafter shall...retain all rights, title, and interest in all Environmental Attributes associated with the Contract Facility during the Term of this Agreement."

In layman's terms, the OPA keeps everything that might contribute to potential carbon credits, which in its terms is an "Environmental Attribute".

You could easily criticize the OPA for doing this, especially for no direct cost in exchange. But the OPA claims that no price can be put on it at this time because their is such uncertainty in what the carbon credits could be worth.

But really, who can fault them? The government is providing huge swaths of money for these projects, so any chance of reclaiming some of that without really harming anyone isn't really out of the question. Furthermore, it could inevitably end up making the FIT program considerably cheaper, if, say in a few years, the government decides to sell its carbon credits on a carbon market to recoup some of its costs.  

This is not a new policy from the OPA. Some of its conservation-demand management programs -- like the Power Savings Blitz program where $1000 worth of lights are given to businesses for free -- have the same "Environmental Attribute" clause written into them.

For now it is not a problem, mostly because a significant carbon market does not exist and nobody really knows about the OPA contract clause. But give it a few years and you can be sure that some people might be a little up in arms when they decide to sell their carbon credits only to find out they don't own them.   

  

G&M Rejects: The Questionable Future of Ontario's Green Energy Act...

I've started taking it upon myself to submit pieces to the Globe & Mail. Anyone can do this, simply by submitting a 700-word piece to comment@globeandmail.ca on any topic they would like. However, the likelihood of actually getting published is fairly small. They get roughly 30 of these submissions per day and many of them come from people who frequently write for different news outlets. But it's worth a shot. They give you about a two week window to decide if they will print it. Sadly, my two weeks are up. So here it is: 

It may only be a few months old, but Ontario’s landmark Green Energy Act (GEA) legislation could soon find itself in hot water. Environmentalists and green energy advocates alike might very well choose to dispel such a statement amidst their victorious celebrations, but let us not ignore the political realities of the GEA. While much of the legislation’s content is not particularly controversial and quite popular, it faces pressure for a few key reasons.




The first such reason is cost. The government is allocating $5-billion over a three year period to the GEA, much of which will be put towards investment in the current electricity infrastructure. Investment in the system is absolutely necessary, but some might say that a few billion dollars in only a few years might be pushing it. Regardless of the appropriateness of the government spending, billions of dollars worth of investment in a new program will almost always breed critics. Furthermore, the significant conservation programs and hefty Feed-in-Tariffs that will spur renewable energy development – the other two fifths of the GEA budget – have left those in opposition to the act chomping at the bit, most notably Ontario’s Progressive Conservatives. The criticisms range from overvaluation of the conservation programs to the unfair market distortions that will be created by government subsidies, but it is clear that the GEA is not a political lovefest in Ontario.

Dalton McGuinty’s government could very well suffer from some of the GEA measures. This is what GEA proponents should really be worried about. It is not too surprising, as any large, progressive legislation is often fraught with political risk. From within the GEA itself, the risk stems from the centralized and streamlined approvals process for renewable energy projects that removes the autonomy of the local municipalities. While touted by its proponents as a mechanism of efficiency, this particular tool of the GEA could backfire as local opposition to green projects swells. Indeed, during a well-packed community meeting in October in Manvers, Ontario, a proposed wind farm was heavily scrutinized by the 500 strong crowd. But the criticism wasn’t just reserved for the wind project itself; the crowd, residing in a Liberal-controlled riding, took direct aim at the McGuinty government and its support for projects like this. Manvers is only one of a growing many places where the GEA will really touch some nerves.


The biggest risk lies within the factors the GEA has no control over. That is, the current state of affairs of Dalton McGuinty’s government. The E-Health scandal, high unemployment rates and a severely hindered economy have done little to raise the public confidence of the provincial government. Indeed, an unprecedented $25-billion move into the red could spell political disaster. Interestingly, this budget shortfall does not even account for the money expected to be doled out in the GEA. At best, several of the grand ambitions of the GEA will have to be revised or dropped outright for lack of funds. The next provincial election is not for another two years, but if a the PCs manage to regain power in Ontario, you can be sure that a good chunk of the GEA will be changed significantly, if not removed.

But the trouble for the GEA does not stop there. Its most vehement political supporter, Deputy Premier and Minister of Energy and Infrastructure, “Furious” George Smitherman, announced his plan to resign in March to run in Toronto’s mayoral race. If anything is proposed to happen to the GEA, he won’t be around to stop it. Eyeing the budget shortfall, some of his colleagues in Cabinet that he so passionately fought off when proposing the GEA will seek to cut up the more flexible and politically viable aspects of the act. Unfortunately, these pieces might be some of the most progressive.

The GEA is indeed a landmark decision and the Ontario government should be applauded for implementing it. The sweeping measures taken will help to ensure a beneficial and efficient transition to a green energy future for the province. But in today’s political and economic climate, nothing is completely written in stone. Take advantage while you can because the Green Energy Act might be a limited time offer.