Ontario offers to buy homemade electricity

Posted on March 21, 2006 by energyprbe

CBC News

March 21, 2006

Ontario is offering to subsidize homeowners and businesses that switch to renewable power sources like solar panels or wind turbines.

It’s the first program of its type in the country and Premier Dalton McGuinty says he hopes the plan will see a quarter of a million homes powered by renewable energy within a decade.

While Canada is far behind European countries like Germany in providing renewable energy, McGuinty says the incentives are the most progressive in North America.

“We’re taking a bold new step that will allow hundreds of small, local renewable energy producers to get into the energy market,” he said.

The government will pay an inflated price for the energy for 20 years to help make the project attractive: 42 cents a kilowatt-hour for solar and 11 cents for wind, biomass, or small hydroelectric projects.

McGuinty expects entrepreneurs and many of the province’s farmers will get involved. “You know what we’re doing, we’re creating a market for a new cash crop in Ontario.”

Environmentalist David Suzuki praised the move, but there are skeptics, including Energy Probe‘s Tom Adams.

“I think it’s really about spin and press releases,” he said. “It’s not really about serving consumers with renewable energy at a reasonable price.”

Asparagus farmer Tim Berry, who’s also a small shareholder in a solar energy company in Cambridge, Ont., says he’ been thinking of putting solar panels on his barn for years. The new incentives announced, he says, may make it worth his while.

“It’s changed the game tremendously, so we’re looking at the economics of it. But where we were yesterday and where we are today, it’s put Ontario at the forefront.”

The program is also being pitched to homeowners, but the upfront costs – as much as $30,000 – are substantial. Experts say it could take 20 years before homeowners pay off their initial investment and turn a profit.

 

Posted in Renewables | Leave a comment

Hot air on wind power

Posted on March 21, 2006 by energyprbe

Margaret Wente
Globe and Mail
March 21, 2006

Up in our rural neck of the woods, where very little happens, everyone is in a tizzy. The wind companies have arrived. Suddenly, there are giant wind farms sprouting 30-storey turbines on our horizon. The wind company salesmen are knocking on doors trying to sign up the local landowners. They put a turbine in your field, and you get $7,000 a year for letting your wind blow through it. Sure beats growing potatoes.

But not everyone is happy. The problem is, wind turbines do not enhance the rural landscape. They are, for starters, massive pieces of industrial equipment. They have bright blinking lights on top. Worse, they have to be hooked up to giant transmission lines in order to move the power from A to B. People in the country like to look at cows, not hydro corridors.

So now we are conflicted. We think wind power is a good thing. Who doesn’t? It’s clean! It’s green! It’s 100-per-cent renewable, and has no nasty side effects or unwanted radioactive waste. We’re not NIMBY-types, honest. We’re just not sure we want those big things in our yards.

Wind power is coming to Ontario because our government is hell-bent on going green. The Premier and the Energy Minister have even obtained the blessing of St. David Suzuki, who is scheduled to appear today for a big announcement on renewable energy and a photo op. The politicians are hoping voters will remember this at election time. They don’t have a clue how they’ll keep the lights on in five or six years, but they want to assure us that their hearts are in the right place.

To get the lowdown on wind, I called my friend Tom Adams at Energy Probe. “It’s a good idea,” the self-confessed energy geek says about wind power. “I’m all for it. But it’s hard to make it work.”

The biggest problem with wind power isn’t the aesthetics. It’s the economics. Wind power is expensive. It’s highly subsidized. It requires large investments in transmission lines. And it isn’t very reliable. That’s because you can’t count on wind to blow. So, if you want to keep the lights on, you’d better have lots of standby power on hand. “Wind is the worst of all major sources of power supply in terms of short-term predictability,” says Mr. Adams.

Wind power’s track record isn’t pretty. Germany, with more than 15,000 turbines, has one of the biggest commitments to wind energy in the world. But the government’s own energy agency has concluded that wind farms are an expensive and inefficient way of generating sustainable energy. How inefficient? According to Mr. Adams, wind power doesn’t start making economic sense until you can get the system operating at 30 per cent of capacity. Last year, the German system ran at 19 per cent; Ontario’s wind system ran at less than that. “That means customers are going to get nailed, investors will go bankrupt, and the landscape will be littered with rusting hulks,” says Mr. Adams.

In Britain, where the government is spending billions to subsidize wind power, some of the biggest critics are prominent environmentalists. They, too, argue that wind power is inefficient, destroys the countryside, and does nothing to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. “It is a scandalous waste of taxpayers’ money,” says Angela Kelly, head of the anti-wind-power coalition.

Wind power might make sense one day. But not yet. Meantime, Ontario’s consumers are paying 8.6 cents a kilowatt hour for wind power, not counting the various hidden subsidies to the industry that are impossible to calculate. The average consumer price for electricity is currently 5.4 cents. Ontario’s cleanest coal plants – which, thanks to advanced technology, are very clean, indeed – make power for 4 cents. If we built new coal plants, the cost would be 6 cents.

But that won’t happen, because coal’s a dirty word. Even though modern coal is environmentally virtuous, reliable and cheap, our Premier has promised to get rid of it. Coal does not make voters feel good. Wind makes them feel good.

If only we could figure out how to get energy from hot air. Then we’d have all the power we need, forever.

 

Posted in Renewables | Leave a comment

Energy Conservation Responsibility Act, 2006

Posted on February 23, 2006 by energyprbe

February 23, 2006

 

EXCERPT

House Hansard: Session 38:2, February 23, 2006

Orders of the day

1550

The Acting Speaker: Further debate.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer (Kitchener-Waterloo): I’m pleased to join the debate on Bill 21, the Energy Conservation Responsibility Act, 2006, which was introduced by the Minister of Energy and which has been capably responded to by our critic, John Yakabuski.

I’m pleased to join the debate today. I think this particular piece of legislation is another example of the fact that this government, despite having been in office for two and a half years, still has no comprehensive plan for energy conservation, or a plan in order to ensure that people and businesses in this province will have a stable, affordable supply of energy as they move into the future. In fact, we’re seeing this concern for this supply and affordability reflected as some of the jobs are lost in our province. We’ve lost over 80,000 jobs. We also know that, despite the investment made this week into the forest industry, we still continue to hear from people in the north about their concern about rising energy costs and the lack of this government in the development of any plan that will respond to those concerns.

So we have another bill, a bill that, at the end of the day, contains little in the way of detail. It has not been terribly carefully considered. It doesn’t speak to how this is going to be funded and certainly, for some people throughout the province of Ontario, these smart meters are going to cause some financial hardship. Also, for some people, particularly tenants, they’re simply not going to have any control over their ability to conserve energy and control their own personal costs.

What is happening in this bill? Well, the government has said they’re going to install somewhere in the neighbourhood of 800,000 smart meters by the end of 2007. They want to make sure that, by 2010, 4.3 million customers in this province would have these meters. We know that the cost of these first meters is going to be somewhere in the neighbourhood of at least $400 million. We also know that this cost is ultimately going to climb to somewhere in the neighbourhood of $2 billion. We also know that this huge capital cost, this huge investment, has never had the opportunity to benefit from any cost-benefit analysis. We’ve also just heard from one of the other members that this technology is probably going to be changing over time. We could have a lot of obsolete meters in this province in very short order, and they’re going to contribute to a problem for our landfill sites.

When people get these new meters, we understand that they’re probably going to be charged, monthly, $1 to $3 for their use. Tom Adams, the executive director of Energy Probe, says that consumers are going to end up paying more for the new technology but have little to show for it. He says that right now, most consumers pay about 50 cents a month for their meters, and he believes that, with these new devices, that cost is going to increase to $8. That is a tremendous amount of money for individuals in this province who are on low incomes.

I want to address some of the concerns that we have been hearing about. I want, before I do that, to quote – this was a quote from the Record, the Kitchener-Waterloo newspaper, on November 4, 2005, when Dave Martin, energy coordinator for Greenpeace Canada, said: “Don’t get me wrong; I think time-of-use … rates is a … good thing … but smart meters are not a substitute for real conservation programs.”

I guess that’s something we need to point out again and again. Despite the title of this bill, there is not, and has not been in the past two and a half years, any effort on the part of this government to encourage people to conserve energy. There have been no incentives; in fact, incentives that were there in the way of energy-efficient appliances that we put in place have been removed.

The other concern I have, as far as this bill and smart meters are concerned, is that there’s nothing said here as to how we’re going to educate the population. I agree that most people want to do what they can to conserve energy, but you also have to educate the public. You need to carefully articulate the purpose, you need to inform the public as to what these meters can and cannot do, and you need to provide some resources in order that individuals will understand the role of these meters. Certainly this bill doesn’t deal with any of that; in fact, the information contained in the bill is quite sparse.

Now, in my community I have heard concerns, in particular from tenants. I want to go to a presentation that was made here to the committee regarding smart meters and sub-metering in rental units. This is an oral presentation that was made to the standing committee on justice policy with regard to Bill 21, and it was made on behalf of RENT. Now, you might ask, who is RENT? They’re a group of people in my community. It stands for Renters Educating and Networking Together. It is a volunteer, proactive non-partisan group of concerned citizens who seek to improve the state of tenants within the region of Waterloo through education, organization and general representation.

These people came forward and made a presentation to the committee. They expressed some concerns about the proposal that has been put on the table by the government, and they go on to say that in every rental situation, tenants have neither the means nor the authority to make truly meaningful conservation changes required in their units. For example, they talk about the fact that they’re not in a position to upgrade insulation, to do any structural replacement or to repair any draughty windows and doors, to repair or upgrade the heating system, to install programmable thermostats or to replace old appliances with new energy-efficient models.

They go on to say that this proposal on the part of the government to shift these rapidly rising energy costs to tenants penalizes Ontario’s lowest-income tenants.

They talk about the fact that the burden will be on the tenants, who basically have no control over the upgrading of the energy efficiency of the building. They go on to say that, yes, a tenant could turn off a few lights. They could do their laundry at night, but we also know that in some buildings the laundry services are not available at night, so that’s really not an option. It’s very difficult for tenants to have any real control over achieving maximum energy savings or conservation, and I want to get that on the record.

They, of course, express concern about the fact that some of the hydro costs as a result are going to be downloaded to them and are concerned that, again, they can’t do anything about this. For example, they mentioned that if they have energy-guzzling appliances, they can’t do anything whatsoever about changing that.

1600

So they are certainly concerned about their ability, and they do ask a lot of questions. They did make a presentation to the committee on behalf of the many people in the region of Waterloo that they do represent. They ask questions about sub-metering: “If sub-metering is allowed, how much will the sub-metering company charge for its administrative fees? What controls are in place for sub-metering and future fee increases?”

They are also concerned about demographics of tenants. For example, what about tenants working outside the home daily or living in Florida for extended periods during the winter? Are the tenants retired people or parents at home with children who will require more hydro usage because they are home through the day? Should these people pay more?

So I think you can see that, certainly, this whole issue of sub-metering and tenants is going to leave us with some questions that obviously need to be answered in order that the tenants and landlords of this province are both treated fairly and equally.

The other presentation that was made to the committee was made on behalf of a group called the Waterloo Region Community Legal Services. The presentation was made by Ms. Gay Slinger. Again, they are a community legal clinic. They’re funded through legal aid. I want to point that out because, obviously, the people they assist are people who meet the legal aid criteria, and many of them are living on social assistance benefits, disability pensions – the unemployed, people working for minimum wage and, of course, seniors.

These are the seniors who are living on fixed, limited incomes, and they also have certainly expressed their concerns about the rollout of the smart meters throughout the provinces to the buildings, the multi-residential buildings, and also the use of sub-metering, which is going to allow landlords to unilaterally, they say, impose individual electricity billings on tenants. Often, this is going to be through private sub-metering companies.

Again, they support, like everybody else in this province, the need to conserve energy and reduce the consumption of energy. They also appreciate and recognize, as we all know we must, that we have to develop a culture of conservation. However, this bill doesn’t speak to that.

They go on, then, to talk about the fact that they’re concerned because tenants cannot simply shift using energy off to peak periods. They talk about the fact that it’s not within their control to do so in any meaningful way to save money. That’s a concern that they talk about.

They go on to echo the concerns of RENT, where they say tenants are not in a position to retrofit the buildings in which they live in order to garner any major or significant savings with respect to true conservation. They know that that can’t be made. They can’t make those changes. So they do want the government to distinguish between the private homeowner and the tenant because, of course, private homeowners do have some ability to deal with drafty windows, they say, making upgrades to the home, dealing with issues like insulation, and also installing high-efficiency furnaces. However, we do need to keep in mind that all of those are costly initiatives. At the end of the day, obviously, there are going to be some cost-benefits.

She goes on and makes an interesting comment: “When I walked into this room over the lunch break” – she’s now referring to the justice committee that was meeting – “it was empty at that time – it was stifling hot in here because you don’t have the control” – meaning control for the heat – “in this room. In order to control your own heat, you had to open a window. So there’s your heat going out the window.”

She used that point to illustrate the fact that tenants are living with the same lack of control in their units. That’s a good case, because today in this building many parts of this building are hot, and there is actually very little control that any of us has to make changes.

She goes on to say that tenants simply “do not have the ability to effect true savings,” and that’s all tenants, regardless of their economic class. You simply don’t have the ability to do so. Again, that is a concern. She goes on to say that if you’re going to speak to and deal with “meaningful conservation,” we need to take a look at the energy efficiency of the entire building as opposed to the energy efficiency of just one unit. You have to take a look at the whole infrastructure of the building and, of course, you have to take a look at the appliances in the building. Again, many of those appliances are owned by the owner of the building, and there is nothing the tenant can do if those appliances are not energy efficient.

She goes on to say, “Understand that even if you’ve got a gas-heated building but it’s not working properly – and that’s not within your control either – that’s when you start using your oven for heat and you start buying space heaters.” Of course, that sends the electric bill even higher.

She talks about clients who are disabled, elderly or single parents, who are home all day. She says they don’t have the same luxury as people who are going out to work, who can turn down their thermostat in the morning and come back from work and turn it up in the afternoon. They just are not in a position where they can sit in the dark all day, they can have the radio and TV off, they can turn down the thermostat if, in this instance, it is even individually controlled. Again, this bill does create some hardships for some of the people in the province who simply don’t have the opportunity to benefit.

I think we can see here that, despite what the government says about this legislation, at the end of the day the government has continued to demonstrate throughout the past two and a half years that they do not have a plan for energy. There is a growing concern in this province. I hear it particularly from people in the business sector, people who create the jobs in Ontario. They continue to tell me, “You know, Elizabeth, you read about the jobs we’re losing in our community, the jobs that we’re losing in the province of Ontario” – that is now over 80,000 jobs since January 2005 – “but we want you to know that our business, despite the fact that we are still operating, is also suffering and our bottom line, obviously, is not where we would like it to be because of the escalating energy costs and because of the lack of any stable supply.” As they’re looking forward and trying to predict, it’s difficult, because they have absolutely no idea what their costs are going to be one, two and three years out. So this becomes one of the factors that causes people who own businesses in this province to take a look at whether or not they can afford to stay here. It’s one of the factors they need to look at. So I would encourage this government and this Premier to develop an energy plan, as opposed to going out and speculating about rolling blackouts this summer, because the people in this province deserve it and need it.

To read the full text.

Posted in Electricity | Leave a comment

Energy Conservation Responsibility Act, 2006 (Part II)

Posted on February 20, 2006 by energyprbe

February 20, 2006

 

EXCERPT

House Hansard: Session 38.2, February 20, 2006

Mr. Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): It’s my pleasure to add some comments to the minister’s speech this evening and that of the member from Peterborough on Bill 21, which is the Energy Conservation Responsibility Act, 2005.

Just a minute ago, the member from Timmins-James Bay was saying how conservation is motherhood and apple pie, and I agree with that. The question for me is, should these smart meters – which are just part of this bill, but it seems to be what we’re focusing on right now – be mandatory?

We heard from the leader of the third party when he was up in Atikokan; his number for the cost of the program is $2 billion. But for the individual household, the idea of course is that you shift your use of electricity to non-peak times – for example, the middle of the night – and you get a lower cost on electricity. But there is speculation that it could cost up to $8 a month. I know that’s what Tom Adams, who is the executive director of Energy Probe, says they’ll cost.

I attended a day of hearings up in Atikokan – or, rather, up in Thunder Bay. Atikokan Hydro was there and they said that in their remote rural situation in the north, they have situations where they might have six meters. They’re in a very remote situation. They have to build a tower and they have to hook up phone lines. The cost is very substantial – they said up to 80% of the cost of the whole asset of Atikokan Hydro – just to put these meters in.

My feeling is that it should be optional, because in many cases for low-electricity users it just won’t make sense. It will cost you money to hook these meters up, and there will be very little savings. I think it should be up to individual residents, the individual consumer, to decide if they think that by putting in a smart meter, they’re going to save some money and for them it will make sense.

The Acting Speaker: The member from Peterborough has two minutes to respond.

Mr. Leal: I want to thank the members from Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge, Simcoe North, Timmins-James Bay and Parry Sound-Muskoka, who provided comments.

I just want to reiterate one of the best real-life examples, Chatham-Kent: 1,000 meters in their pilot study, an all-in cost of $1.29, verified by a third party, the accounting firm of Deloitte. I’d recommend that everybody in this House take an opportunity to read the results from Chatham-Kent, because it provides detailed background information that’s so important to legislators in order to make a decision on Bill 21, which is the smart metering energy conservation initiative.

My colleague the member from Mississauga West in fact had a smart meter installed in his home. He indicated to us in committee the amount of electricity he has saved in his home when he introduced and installed a smart meter to his day-to-day living. Clearly, the member from Mississauga West demonstrates what effect smart metering can have.

If you extrapolate the result from Chatham-Kent and you look at it closely, I think it’s reasonable to conclude that the estimates that have been provided by the Ministry of Energy to install smart meters in the province are certainly within the dollar amount that has been suggested for this initiative. When you look at Chatham-Kent and see that people did save electricity and the payback was greater than the cost of installing the smart meter, the real value of smart metering and conservation for Ontario is very visible through that study.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Yakabuski: It’s a pleasure to join third reading debate of Bill 21, An Act to enact the Energy Conservation Leadership Act, 2006, and to amend the Electricity Act, 1998.

I would put it to the member for Peterborough – I do appreciate the member for Peterborough’s input on the travelling committee as well as that of the member for Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh, the member for Mississauga West, the member for Stoney Creek – I think there’s probably at least one more, but I can’t think of it right now. Those are members from the government side. I want to thank my colleagues the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka and the member for Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant for travelling and the member for Durham for sitting with me on that committee, and also the member for Kenora-Rainy River and leader of the third party for their input of course.

I would like to know if I could get some kind of commitment from the member for Peterborough who, as you know, is also the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Energy. He was going on quite extensively about how he applauded the pilot project in Chatham-Kent and quoted that figure very often of, I believe, $1.29.

Mr. Leal: All in.

Mr. Yakabuski: All in, $1.29. That’s the way we like it: all in, full price, $1.29. Could we expect it to be a commitment from this government that that is what smart metering will cost? I hardly think so. I heard somebody in the background, the member for Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge, saying “Probably less.”

Probably not. The estimates go as high as $8, as you know, Mr. Speaker. My friend from Parry Sound-Muskoka indicated that Tom Adams of Energy Probe says the figure could go as high as $8. This could be another $2-billion boondoggle like the federal Liberal gun registry: a complete mess that has done nothing but cause problems and solved none.

Hon. George Smitherman (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): That’s why the chiefs of police are in favour of it.

Mr. Yakabuski: The Minister of Health has wakened from his slumber. It’s good to have him here tonight.

Mr. Speaker, if I could get back on topic without the heckling from the government side, this could be another $2-billion boondoggle, as I say, just like the federal Liberal gun registry.

Some things were raised at the committee hearings with regard to smart meters; there is a varying range of opinion as to whether they’re worthless, somewhat useful, very useful or the best thing since they invented the wheel. They did run the gamut, and we had varying opinions on them.

There were lot of concerns about smart metering: a lot of concerns with regard to privacy, concerns with regard to lack of detail. You see, the minister started talking about smart meters months and months ago – I’m trying to think of exactly how many – but as of yet, no RFP, and people who are in the business are asking themselves, “Is the government doing it; is it not?” There’s no way they’re going to be in a position – they’ve got a new energy pricing schedule based on smart metering to come into effect on May 1, a scaled price of 2.8, 6.8 and 9.3, depending on the time of day you’re using the power. They’re not going to be in any position at all to implement that, because none of these meters are going to be in place. We’re in February now; we’re almost into March.

It’s like everything else: The government is great at coming up with an idea, they’re great at picking a destination, but they’re not all that good at navigating their way there. As Yogi Berra once said, “If you don’t know where you’re going, you’re probably going to end up somewhere else.” That’s just about what this government is embarking on – a trip to never-never land or something, or maybe they think they’re going to Disney World. Who knows? Maybe they think they’re going to get cheap power down there.

To read the full text.

 

Posted in Electricity | Leave a comment

Coal is cool again. Just ask Ralp

Posted on February 9, 2006 by energyprbe

(Feb. 9, 2006) It looks that way. The Alberta Department of Energy yesterday confirmed that coal, the lowly, grubby black stuff otherwise known as yesterday’s fuel, will make a star appearance in Premier Ralph Klein’s Throne Speech on Feb. 22. Details are scant, but it looks like Mr. Klein will extol the virtues of coal as an enthusiastic wannabe member of the new “integrated” energy policy, side by side with oil and natural gas and a few green bits. Continue reading →

Posted in Alberta Power Industry | Leave a comment

Coal is cool again. Just ask Ralph

Posted on February 9, 2006 by energyprbe

Eric Reguly
The Globe and Mail
February 9, 2006

It looks that way. The Alberta Department of Energy yesterday confirmed that coal, the lowly, grubby black stuff otherwise known as yesterday’s fuel, will make a star appearance in Premier Ralph Klein’s Throne Speech on Feb. 22. Details are scant, but it looks like Mr. Klein will extol the virtues of coal as an enthusiastic wannabe member of the new “integrated” energy policy, side by side with oil and natural gas and a few green bits.

No one can remember the last time coal was mentioned in an Alberta Throne Speech. Maybe Mr. Klein is about to prove yet again that he’s the smartest dumb guy you’ve ever met.

The Premier and his capable Energy Minister, Greg Melchin, probably have reached a few grim conclusions about the state of the province’s energy supply.

The first is that conventional oil reserves, which can be pumped out of the ground, and the easy-access gas reserves are disappearing with shock-and-awe speed. If they weren’t, you wouldn’t see the oil companies sinking tens of billions of dollars into the oil sands and gas pipelines to the Arctic.

The second, and probably foremost, must be the realization that it is a sin to burn a clean fuel, gas, to make a dirty fuel, oil. This has been likened to turning champagne into rubbing alcohol. Vast quantities of gas are burned to create the steam to cook the bitumen trapped in the sands so that oil can be drawn to the surface.

The third must be that the fuel capable of propelling the Alberta economy for decades, maybe centuries, is not oil or gas but coal. That’s because there’s so much of it. At the current rate of production, Alberta’s coal reserves will last 800 to 1,000 years, the Energy Department says. Measured by energy value, the coal reserves are twice as big as all the conventional and unconventional oil and gas reserves together. Seventy per cent of Canada’s coal is in Alberta.

Mr. Klein wants to exploit this merry accident of geology. Building coal plants to generate steam for the oil sands is one option that probably will be pursued with vigour (nuclear plants have also been proposed, an idea that seems to be losing favour). Using coal to generate more of the country’s electricity is another.

Which brings us to Ontario. If Alberta can get excited about coal, why can’t Ontario?

Under Premier Dalton McGuinty, Ontario seems determined to test society’s tolerance for blackouts. The province almost faded to black in last summer’s heat wave; only hideously expensive electricity imports kept the lights on. Ontario nonetheless has handed death sentences to its coal-burning generating plants for the crimes of generating smog, acid rain, cough-inducing particulates and Kyoto-unfriendly carbon dioxide. Toronto’s big Lakeview plant was closed last year. The Lambton plant is to go next year. Nanticoke, one of the biggest coal-burners on the continent, is to shut by 2009.

At least that’s the plan. Given the severe energy shortages, the new line from the government is that the plants will not disappear until there is enough new generation built to replace with missing megawatts. Good luck. Even if a new nuclear plant is approved this year – public consultations on that option are being held this month – a decade or more would pass before it would produce electricity.

As a stop-gap measure, Ontario wants to build two new gas-fired plants, one in Brampton and one in Toronto. The Brampton one is already well on its way, with full operation scheduled by mid-2008. Guess what? Gas has become so expensive that neither the Brampton plant nor the proposed Toronto plant have negotiated long-term gas supply contracts. Gas is available, but not at the price they want to pay. Gas prices are so high that many partly constructed gas plants in the United States are being abandoned, their turbines sold for pennies on the dollar.

So why not bring back coal? It’s a lot cheaper than gas and it’s available in vast quantities. Coal is even cleaning up its act. While true “clean” coal does not exist yet, “cleaner” coal, with substantially reduced levels of pollutants, such as sulphur and mercury, is already on the market. The technology is improving rapidly. In the not-too-distant future, clean coal should be competitive with gas on the emissions front (burning coal still produces carbon dioxide).

Still, Ontario isn’t biting. Energy Probe estimates that converting the dirty coal plants to clean coal would cost less than half as much as supplying the equivalent electricity by burning gas.

Perhaps Mr. McGuinty should talk to Mr. Klein about the virtues of coal. The alternatives are either too expensive, too late or a potentially light-dimming combination of both.

 

Posted in Alberta Power Industry | Leave a comment

New Energy Probe study finds AECL subsidies account for 12% of national debt

Posted on January 12, 2006 by Other News Sources

Harry Koza
Thomson IFR Bonddata
January 12, 2006

Energy Probe has released a new study examining federal subsidies to Atomic Energy of Canada (AECL). According to Probe, since its inception in 1952, subsidies to AECL account for CAD74.5 bln of today”s federal debt. Further, Probe contends that had those subsidies been instead invested in the Canadian economy, their value today would be CAD194.6 bln, roughly equivalent to 11.5% of the market cap of the TSX.

In addition, AECL has a morass of contingent liabilities, some of which could confer big future costs on taxpayers. The study”s conclusion is that the ongoing subsidies to AECL are a significant drain on Canada”s national resources, and there is no prospect of taxpayers ever recovering the investment. You can access the entire report here.

With Ontario now embarked on attempting to solve its major electricity problems with a huge new commitment to nuclear power, the report is particularly timely, and should be of particular interest to holders of Ontario debt.

Posted in Nuclear Economics | Tagged | Leave a comment

China Admits to Nuclear Waste on Tibetan Plateau

Posted on January 6, 2006 by energyprbe

Green Tibet – Annual Newsletter 1996
January 6, 2006

China Admits to Nuclear Waste on Tibetan Plateau

 

Tibetan Government-in-exile denounced China’s dumping of nuclear waste in Tibet way back in 1980s. In 1987 His Holiness the Dalai Lama released the Five Point Peace Plan for Tibet, the fourth point in this plan called for:

Restoration and protection of Tibet’s natural environment and the abandonment of China’s use of Tibet for the production of nuclear weapons and dumping of nuclear waste.

Tibetan government-in-exile’s consistent condemnation of China’s storing of nuclear waste in Tibet was reckoned with skepticism by the international media. The existence of nuclear waste was denounced by His Holiness the Dalai Lama at a press conference in Bangalore, India, in 1992. Beijing as usual, resolutely denied the existence of any nuclear waste dumping in Tibet. China’s Nationalities Affairs Commission subsequently issued a document stating that allegations of nuclear pollution from deployment of nuclear weapons and nuclear waste in Tibet were “totally groundless.”

However, recently China has admitted to dumping nuclear waste in Tibet. This admission is a big blow to Chinese integrity but bestows great credibility to the Tibetan Government-in-exile and Tibet Support Groups (TSG) all over the world. Further details follows:

Washington, D.C. (ICT), August 8, 1995 — For the first time, China has admitted to the existence of nuclear waste on the Tibetan plateau. An official Xinhua news report, published on 19th July 1993 said there is a “20 sq. m dump for radioactive pollutants” in Haibei Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture near the shores of lake Kokonor, the largest lake on the Tibetan Plateau.

The report claimed that the military nuclear weapon facility, which produced the waste had maintained an “excellent” safety record during its 30 years of operation, and that there had not been “any harm to the environment and no one at the base ever died of radiation.” “Nuclear waste pollution in the area is very low” and “many industries and ever increasing population of people are migrating into the area.”

The report did not give details as to how the nuclear waste was initial contained and how it is currently being maintained. It did say that the Chinese government spent a large amount of money from 1989 to 1993 to “strictly supervise the environmental conditions of this nuclear weapon base,” according to You Deliang, spokesman for the China Nuclear Industry Corporation.

A 1993 report, Nuclear Tibet, released by the International Campaign for Tibet (ICT) Washington, D.C., documented reports by a local Tibetan doctor, Dr. Tashi Dolma of abnormally high rates of diseases in the nearby towns of Reshui and Ganzihe. The doctors also treated the children of nomads who grazed their animals adjacent to the nuclear base. Seven of whom died of cancer over-five-year period. The doctor was unable to pursue inquiries to determine the likelihood of a connection to the nuclear base.

The nuclear base, known as the “Ninth Academy” or “Factory 211” was China’s primary nuclear weapons research and production facility which produced all of China’s early nuclear weapons. ICT’s report Nuclear Tibet provided the first public in-depth account of the facility, and concluded that while the nature and quantity of the nuclear waste was unclear, its existence was undeniable. During the 1960s and 1970s, nuclear waste from the facility was disposed of in a roughshod and haphazard manner.

The decision to locate the facility on the Tibetan plateau was made by Li Jue, who had been a deputy commander and chief of staff of the Tibet Military Region in the years following the invasion of Tibet. The earliest known reference to the facility in the West was in a 1966 Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) report which referred to a “Koko Nor nuclear weapons center.” Even though the Chinese government is now acknowledging the existence and role of the facility, the CIA told ICT that the existence of records pertaining to the facility remains classified.

The Xinhua article said that the nuclear base, which used to have 1,170 sq. km. of forbidden zone, only appeared as grassland on ordinary maps. This nuclear weapons facility happened to be decommissioned in 1987, the year the Dalai Lama called upon China to make Tibet a nuclear free zone. In 1993 the same nuclear production center was shifted to Tso-ngon province (Qinghai Province) and gave the responsibility of maintaining it to the Tso-ngon Province Administration.

DIIR, Dharamsala, 26th July, 1995-A United Daily News report dated 10th July, 1995 from Taiwan says that on May 15th China made a public announcement that it is closing the nuclear weapon production at Tso-ngon (Qinghai) Province of Eastern Tibet.

According to official Chinese news agent Xinhua, today the base is the world’s first retired research and production base for nuclear weapon, this site is now occupied by factories, shops, hospitals and local houses and birds are known to nest in the area.

However, Office of Research & Analysis of HH the Dalai Lama in Dharamsala tells a different story. It said, “The above nuclear production center being transformed into “factories” seems certain. But still these “factories” are secretly guarded by Chinese security personnel round the clock. Therefore, local Tibetans strongly feel that a further investigation is necessary to see whether the closing announcement is really true or not.”

Still many nuclear missiles remain stationed on the Tibetan Plateau. A report by the National Resource Defense Council, Washington, D.C., on 24th March 1994 states that China currently has nuclear missiles stationed on the Tibetan Plateau at least three sites: These are: 1. Delingha (37.60N, 97.12E); 2. Da Qaidam (37.50N, 95.18E) and 3. Xiao Qaidam (37.26N, 95.08E)

Reference: Nuclear Tibet. 1993 (ICT); National Resource Defense Council (24/3/94); Xinhua (19/7/95); United Daily News (10/7/95).

 

Posted in Nuclear Safety | Leave a comment

Ontario must spend $40B fixing nuclear plants, $30B more on wind power, report declares

Posted on December 10, 2005 by energyprbe

Heather Sokoloff
National Post
December 10, 2005

Toronto: A provincially appointed body is recommending Ontario refurbish or replace its fleet of 12 nuclear power plants at a cost of $30 billion to $40 billion, according to a report released yesterday.

It also recommends transforming Ontario into a North American leader in the use of wind technology, bringing the total projected cost to about $70 billion.

The Ontario Power Authority (OPA) report warns Ontario will face a massive energy shortage when the government makes good on a promise to phase out Ontario’s four remaining coal plants by 2009. At the same time, existing nuclear plants will also have to be taken out of service if they are not upgraded in about 10 years, leaving Ontario with an energy gap of about 24,000 megawatts by 2025, equivalent to 80 per cent of the province’s current capacity.

“We take this report very seriously,” said Ontario Energy Minister Donna Cansfield. “We will carefully review the report’s advice and analysis as well as public input before making a decision on future supply mix.”

The government will have a long-term plan worked out by February, Ms. Cansfield said.

The full 1,100-page report will be posted on the Environmental Bill of Rights and Ministry of Energy websites for 60 days so the public can provide input.

The Ontario Power Authority was created by the Liberal government to provide a long-term strategy for Ontario’s future energy supply as demand and population increase.

Critics said the report’s emphasis on nuclear energy was driven by political considerations stemming from the phasing out of coal. Several former Liberal staffers are currently employed as lobbyists for the nuclear industry, while former Liberal leader Lyn McLeod is on the OPA’s board of directors and party fundraiser Jan Carr is the chief executive.

“This is a crazy plan,” said Thomas Adams, executive director of Energy Probe, a consumer watchdog group. “It’s completely driven by ideology. The decision to rule out Ontario’s least costly option is really what’s driving this.”

Provincial NDP leader Howard Hampton said Premier Dalton McGuinty has embraced nuclear power despite Ontario’s history of plants that have suffered massive cost overruns and delays in construction.

“This is going to mean very expensive electricity,” said Mr. Hampton. “Most of our electricity debt in Ontario is nuclear debt.”

A report commissioned by the Association of Major Power Consumers in Ontario, an association of industries such as steel, pulp and paper and chemical producers, concludes Ontario power prices, already in the top quartile of prices in North America, will rise by 25 per cent by 2008.

“We are not satisfied that it’s appropriate to have a conversation when a large chunk of options are ruled out on the face of it,” said association president Adam White, adding he wants the government to investigate new technologies that enable coal plants to meet higher environmental standards.

But OPA vice-president Amir Shalaby said such technologies cannot remove all contaminants from coal and make it truly clean. Coal currently produces 19 per cent of Ontario’s electricity. The plan would mean nuclear would continue to satisfy half of Ontario’s electricity needs, with renewable forms of energy increasing to 43 per cent by 2025, up from 23 per cent today.

About half of the renewable part of the energy mix would come from installing 5,000 megawatts of wind power by 2025. The remainder would include imported hydro power and smaller solar and biomass procurements.

That much wind power would put Ontario on a par with the top wind-producing jurisdictions such as Germany, Denmark and California, said Mr. Shalaby.

Mr. Shalaby defended the plan’s $70-billion price tag, saying Ontario consumers should be prepared to invest between $1 billion and $2 billion a year in infrastructure for an electricity system that costs them $15 billion annually.

About half the cost could be paid within two decades, he said.

 

Posted in Renewables | Leave a comment

Green talk

Posted on December 7, 2005 by energyprbe

Tom Adams, Letter to the Editor
Globe and Mail
December 7, 2005

Premiers Doer and Charest plead for meaningful action to cut greenhouse gas emissions (“Seize the climate-friendly day” December 7, see below). Both premiers preside over government-owned power utilities right now selling power to households at prices that deliver home heating at prices below those of natural gas heating, thereby encouraging customers to switch from gas to inefficient baseboard electric heaters. Meanwhile, both utilities rely on natural gas and coal or oil-fired generators to supply electricity demands at during the winter. Indirectly meeting heating needs with fossil-fired power multiplies emissions by a factor of three. The same anti-environmental power pricing situation exists in B.C. as well. If Doer and Charest want to implement their own environmental advice they will introduce seasonal pricing for electricity, so that winter electricity prices reflect the real costs.

Tom Adams, Executive Director, Energy Probe

Seize the climate-friendly day

by Gary Doer and Jean Charest, Globe and Mail, December 7, 2005

As the season turns to winter and Canadians prepare for several months of shovelling snow, it can be tough to convince people that global warming is a problem.

As a northern country, however, Canada is particularly vulnerable to climate change. Every day, we are presented with scientific studies that outline the impact of climate change on Canada, and already we are seeing profound changes in many of our provinces and territories.

Churchill, Man., is famous as the polar bear capital. Today, those same bears that draw tourists from all over the world are gaining notoriety as the canaries in the climate-change coal mine. The bears are among the first species to show the stress of shorter, warmer winters, and scientists fear for their future.

In northern Quebec, there has been a noticeable warming of the permafrost layer since 1992. In 1957, a peat bog east of Hudson Bay had 8,900 square metres of permafrost. By 2003, the permafrost had shrunk to 75 square metres. In addition to forever altering our landscape, these changes are affecting animal activity, movement and safety.

As citizens, business people, politicians and environmentalists meet in Montreal this week for the United Nations Climate Change Conference and a series of parallel events, it is time for us to reflect on the next steps in the international effort to address climate change.

We must continue to gather scientific evidence – to educate the public and spur individuals, organizations, businesses and governments to action. We must unite behind well-established and fledging efforts that are under way to better protect our wild lands and wildlife, and develop “green” technologies that address the challenge head-on.

A key step is shifting the public discourse on climate change from being a matter of environmental concern to one that includes the social and economic merits of taking concrete action. As premiers, we don’t want to lose the beauty of our lakes and forests. Or find ourselves telling our great-grandchildren about the once-majestic white bear that hunted and fished on enormous Arctic ice floes. We also cannot ignore the impact on the health of our citizens and our economic prosperity.

In Manitoba, climate change is shortening our winter-roads season, which has a direct impact on the economic and social well-being of isolated northern communities. In Quebec, scientists are concerned that climate change will affect both the economic viability and sensitive ecosystem of the mighty St. Lawrence Seaway.

It was only a few short years ago that some predicted economic doom for Canada if it signed the Kyoto Protocol. Today, a group of prominent Canadian CEOs is joining the call for action: “We believe that all governments, corporations, consumers and citizens have responsibilities under the Kyoto Protocol.” Indeed, many individuals and organizations are turning the debate over climate change into concrete action. The focus of the climate leaders summit that we are hosting this week is to highlight just this – and demonstrate that out of great challenge often rises great economic opportunity.

It is easy to be daunted by the enormity of the task that lies ahead. But we don’t have to look far to find positive, creative actions that are already under way. Throughout North America, cities such as Montreal are showing leadership and setting ambitious targets to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.

In provinces such as Manitoba and Quebec, climate-change plans have sparked emerging industries, economic development and new jobs. Both provinces benefit from an abundance of renewable hydroelectric resources, and will continue to develop these resources. But the strategic development of alternative energies such as wind, geothermal, ethanol and hydrogen is creating new industries and markets and fuelling economic growth. In just a few short years, Manitoba’s fledgling geothermal industry has grown to where it now provides 30 per cent of Canada’s heat pumps, and trains more than 50 per cent of the country’s installers. Public- and private-sector efforts – a low-interest loan program offered by Manitoba Hydro and the “can do” attitude of companies such as Manitoba’s Ice Kube Systems – have combined to ignite a new industry. Lower energy costs for consumers and reduced greenhouse-gas emissions are the long-term benefits for Canadians.

For its part, Quebec has been developing wind energy since the late 1990s. Today, it boasts a capacity of 400 megawatts. But this energy system is only just beginning to show what it can do. By the end of 2013, an extra 3,100 MW will have been installed in Quebec. Wind is also boosting regional economic development as windmill parts and assembly plants are now under construction in the Gaspé region. This will create more than 120 permanent jobs.

Across our country, investments in wind power and biofuels such as ethanol are not only cutting emissions but proving to be the crops of the future – providing new sources of revenue for agricultural producers and helping to diversify the rural economy. Whether it’s green-building technology, hydrogen research and development, hybrid public transportation or new energy efficiencies, the economic opportunities are as wide open as a Prairie sky.

This is why it is important that we recommit ourselves to meaningful actions and targets for addressing climate change beyond the 2012 time frame set out in the Kyoto treaty. We need to continue to motivate consumers, businesses and government, while providing new and emerging industries with the certainty they need to continue making investments in technologies that make a difference.

The time has come for us to seize the economic opportunities that are unfolding before us, to innovate and encourage ideas, and build our economy in a way that brings prosperity, health and social well-being, and sustainability. As Canadians, we have a long line of achievements to our credit. Let’s work together and add a prosperous, sustainable economy to our list.

Gary Doer is Premier of Manitoba, and Jean Charest is Premier of Quebec.

Posted in Costs, Benefits and Risks | Leave a comment