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.

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!

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.

Poll Results: Wind turbines in your community...

Question: A company wants to put a few wind turbines in your community, do you...

Welcome it with open arms? We need more green energy -- 12 Votes (50%)

Learn more about them and get a community group together that could possibly invest in the project? Community power has its advantages -- 10 Votes (41%)

Go about your usual business? Who really cares anyway -- 3 Votes (12%)

Vehemently oppose it and fight the project to the death? They are an eyesore and could be dangerous to my health -- 1 Vote (4%)

Get the hell out of dodge? There's no way I'm hanging around near those behemoths -- 0 Votes (0%)

As expected, most people voted in support of the project. This is fairly common throughout Canada, as the majority of Canadians are generally supportive of wind power. However, things might change if it is in your community. Studies have found that support for projects can be very high initially, but as the details of the project come closer to reality, support can often drop drastically. Even the most staunch environmental supporters can find themselves opposing a project, especially when they didn't expect to in the first place -- which helps to explain why so few are opposed to any project.

The second most popular choice was to learn more about wind power projects. Most people don't know the ins and outs of these things and know only things through word of mouth. In many cases, these things can be false and exaggerated, be it supportive or oppositional to wind power, so it is very important that people get involved and start to learn the facts about that particular project. One of the best ways to do that is to get involved in the project itself by gathering up community members to invest in the project. Community ownership can influence the design of the project to make it more socially acceptable and appropriate in your community.

Just leaving it to others and going on with your own routine was also popular for some. While we at Enviro Boys are fascinated by this stuff, it is likely that many people just don't care whether or not there are any wind turbines put up. This is completely fair. Everyone has their priorities.

Only one person elected to fight it vehemently. This is gaining ground in Ontario as more wind projects are being put up. Some wind developers have undercut communities over the years and left an unappealing mark on the industry, resulting in an all out battle against wind power in Ontario, regardless of the project type. Other regions face this, too. While it is important to recognize the drawbacks of projects, sometimes this opposition can get a little carried away and reject any type of compromise.

No one decided to leave, but it is a reality. Some people can't stand the sight, the sound or even develop health issues related to wind energy -- although the latter is still up for debate. Some also leave before their property values plummet.

Being supportive of wind in general is nice, but the game can change drastically when it becomes a reality in your community.

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.

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.

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.

Raaawwwwrrrrr! Me eat wind turbine...

The opposition to wind power is becoming increasingly diverse. The disdain for the industry is no longer reserved for upset property owners, saddened bird and bat lovers, low-frequency electromagnetic wave health worriers or the powerful fossil fuel industry.

No, the newest threat to wind power is a giant, four-armed monster. Where these monsters can be found is so far uncertain, but warnings are being issued to the world on value-brand tissue boxes.

I took this picture of my sister's tissue box. At first (and still) am not sure whether the tissue company is advocating the destruction of wind turbines, or whether it is highlighting how these monsters will soon rid the world of all its trees and wind turbines. Unless of course, an unnamed band of green superheroes are able to fend it off with large orange balls.

If the latter is indeed the case, a certain irony can be found in the message: the monster is destroying trees and tissue paper is made from trees. So who is the box really attacking?

Whatever the reason, be prepared to see a few of these monsters at any upcoming town hall meetings on a wind power development. Just make sure to pack your orange balls.

Meet Canada's new Big Green Giant...

It took a few months, but Alberta's largest electricity generator, TransAlta, was finally able to finalize its takeover of Canada's largest renewable energy generator, Canadian Hydro Developers (CHD).

This is big. As it stands, the development of renewable energy in Canada has been fairly scattered as a multitude of different companies, utilities and community groups are installing 'green' power, primarily from wind, hydro, solar and biomass. The largest of these companies is CHD, generating nearly 700 MW from 21 wind, solar and biomass projects in B.C., Ontario, Quebec & Alberta. Those in Ontario may be familiar with its largest and most controversial wind project, the Wolfe Island Wind Project.

But today, TransAlta purchased CHD for $1.6B to significantly add to its green portfolio. TransAlta is known for its large coal-fired generation plants that generate nearly 4000MW, although it also dabbles in gas and some renewables. But acquiring CHD will put a lot of money behind renewables in Canada and could lead to a massive influx of grandiose renewable power projects.

This acquisition has several benefits for TransAlta. First, it makes them look greener. Coal is not cool anymore and being known as a coal giant degrades its reputation daily. Being green, however, is cool and people may look more favourably towards it.

Secondly, TransAlta intends to cease expansion of coal-fired generation plants in the next few years. Since energy companies like to grow, it leaves a sizeable (and profitable) gap of potential development. The new renewable projects will fill much of that gap, but more importantly, they will launch TransAlta into a sector that has nowhere to go but up, made especially enticing by considerable government incentives.

Thirdly, it gives TransAlta the right to any 'green credits' that might come along with a large cap-and-trade system. That is, groups creating green power will be given credits -- as opposed to having to purchase credits for GHG emitting behaviour, like coal plants -- that they can sell to other firms, or in TransAlta's case, use to offset some of the damage done by its GHG emitting gas and coal plants.

With the arrival of such a giant in Canada's renewable energy sector, the development of renewable power is hit with a question: What is the best way to go about deploying renewable energy? Is it through large companies like TransAlta that will be able to take advantage of massive economies of scale and significant resources to establish very large generation projects with an increased likelihood of encountering public opposition? Or should governments be focused on deploying them locally, through community-based power projects?

The presence of TransAlta will certainly make things interesting. And with the Green Energy Act coming into place, TransAlta's green future looks even more promising. But if its future projects are anything like Wolfe Island, you can be sure we'll stand witness to a big, windy fight.

An angry wind is blowing around Peterborough...

"No more wind! No more wind!"

These were the fledgling cries flying from directly behind me last night. The source of the quickly defunct chant was an irate man attending a public meeting in Manvers, Ontario where a controversial wind farm is being proposed. After the initial and vague proponent-driven open house drew hefty criticism from the community, a second, more open meeting was held.

Manvers is only one of the many small towns sitting southwest of Peterborough that lies within the study area of the proposed Settlers Landing Snowy Ridge Wind Park, a hypothetical wind farm being developed by a group based out of Brighton, ON, known as Energy Farming Ontario (EFO).

The project was initially considering 30 2MW turbines over an area covering several thousand acres, but has since been reduced to several clusters of turbines.

I attended the packed meeting last night in Manvers and arrived to find a large room in the local arena packed with so many people that we were forced to stand by the doors -- where a photo similar to the one above was plastered -- for much of the meeting. Estimates of attendance were well over 500, a sure rise from the 150 or so that attended the open house earlier.

Although I have been studying these kinds of meetings all summer, I had never actually been to one. But it played out just as expected. The proponents, well-dressed out of towners and armed with fact-filled powerpoint presentations, went through the motions of describing the project, its numerous benefits and perhaps stealing some of the fighting energy from the crowd as it drew on and on and on.

After scoffs by the crowd in response to certain claims by the proponents -- surrounding property values might actually increase -- members of different 'wind awareness' groups informed the audience, several times inaccurately, about the dangers of wind power. This included a man who spent over thirty minutes associating decibel levels from wind turbines with a myriad of health and quality of life defects, prompting several people to leave as he droned on.

However, another presenter showed a very powerful video taken by a farmer in the US showcasing the effects of the shadows of the turbines on his property. The thought of these very significant light changes going 24 hours/day and 7 days/week was sure to ramp up the opposition to the project.

The most interesting, and exciting aspect of these meetings is the question period. The floor was opened to anyone, as members of the public took turns blasting the project, lambasting the province's Green Energy Act -- which will reduce the power of local governments -- and pushing the proponents for answers they were never really able to give.

As you may have gathered, the crowd was less the excited about the project and there were consistent hoots and hollers from the audience.

Several interesting talking points were raised in the car ride back. Are the developers naive? Did they not know what types of questions would be asked of them? Are they really bad people, or are they well meaning people dipping their feet into a sensitive issue? Is their out-of-town nature a severe hindrance?

What about the public? How many of them were really against it? Are they just selfish landowners expressing NIMBY attitudes in the face of climate change? Will they even stay interested in the project?

The questions are endless, but an especially important question needs to be asked. How much are we willing to risk the change of our livelihoods against that of the changes coming from climate change that will ultimately effect nearly everyone?

One last interesting piece were the politics at play. The local MPP, Rick Johnson, a member of the Liberal Party -- the majority government pushing the Green Energy Act through -- was quoted as wanting to defend his community's interests, although it was implied that this would involve some criticism of the Green Energy Act. Dalton McGuinty & George Smitherman might get a little upset with him.