You Decide

The Department of Energy and Climate Change in the UK is challenging you to solve the problem of reducing the country’s CO2 emissions by 20 per cent of 1990 levels by the year 2050.

The data behind the 2050 simulation is based on actual UK data. You read along and learn about how the country uses energy and then decide how you see its future. The program quantifies your ideas and prompts further questions about the impact of your choices.

When you are done you get a snap shot of what your world looks like – again nicely quantified and easy to understand – including geography references, scale and scope of development that would be required, nod to efficiencies realized and a literal count of things like wind turbines and nuclear power plants that would be required. You can return to your musing and try again or submit the results.

But what we really like about this sim is that it’s the foundation for the Pathway Debate. Eight climate and energy experts have set out how they think the UK could meet the target using the 2050 tool. Brilliant. This is one of the best online tools we’ve seen recently to help consumers understand the relationship between supply and demand. It’s about the energy mix and how all of the sources work together to power the future. So hop to it and take a spin or should we say a sim.

Really, everyone these days is an energy armchair critic, picking winners and losers and thinking they have a better idea. Now it’s your turn. You decide. And you just might learn something in the process.

Totally Renewable – and Renewed – by 2030?

In our recent post on the World Future Energy Summit, we discussed the need for policy change in order to achieve current climate change targets. Two scientists in the United States have taken that one step further. Mark Z. Jacobson, professor of civil and environmental engineering, Stanford University and Mark A. Delucchi, research scientist, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis; believe that all that is needed to achieve a totally carbon free, totally renewable, wind, water and solar (WWS) based energy system by 2030 is political will.

Well, maybe a bit more than that. We’ll also need:

• 490,000 tidal turbines, each with an installed capacity of one megawatt
• 5,350 geothermal plants, each with an installed capacity of 100 megawatts
• 270 additional hydroelectric plants, each with an installed capacity of 1,300 megawatts
• 3.8 million wind turbines, each with an installed capacity of five megawatts
• 720,000 wave powered turbines, each with an installed capacity of 0.75 megawatts
• 1.7 billion rooftop photovoltaic systems, each with an installed capacity of three kilowatts
• 49,000 solar focusing steam power plants, each with an installed capacity of 300 megawatts
• 40,000 photovoltaic power plants, each with an installed capacity of 300 megawatts

Basically, to achieve a totally renewable WWS energy system, we’ll have to totally renew the existing system. And that includes building a new, super-interconnected electricity transmission grid. It also involves scrapping all internal combustion engine vehicles and replacing them with electric or fuel cell vehicles.

And the cost estimate is only about $100 trillion.

The most fascinating aspect of this theory is that it might just be doable.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration predicts that by 2030, world energy demand will be 16.9 terawatts (TW), or enough to power 47 60-watt light bulbs for every person on earth. But Jacobson and Delucchi point out that in a carbon-free world there would be no internal combustion engines, and internal combustion engines are far less efficient than electricity, so the actual requirement drops to 11.5 TW.

And if you think 3.8 million wind turbines is a lot, consider that auto manufacturers make 73 million cars per year. Also consider that much of the world’s electricity generation and transmission infrastructure is aging and will have to be replaced in the not too distant future anyway. And without all the transportation-induced air pollution, medical and environmental costs would decrease significantly.

As far as reliability of the system is concerned, a thoroughly interconnected grid will be able to re-route surplus electricity to wherever it is needed. Jacobson and Delucchi point out, perhaps a little simplistically, that if it’s raining in one place, it’s sunny someplace else, or if there’s no wind, it’s probably sunny. In other words, electricity will be generated somehow, somewhere.

The authors have determined that the only technical barrier might be the availability of rare-earth metals needed for batteries, solar films and fuel cells. But if we recycle old batteries and buildings, we should have ample supply of steel, concrete and things like neodymium and indium.

Which means the real barrier is political will, which ultimately means getting everyone onside. Most of us agree there’s a problem, but maybe it’s a little far fetched to try and achieve all this by 2030. Maybe it’s more realistic to try for 2050. Implement a more gradual shift, replacing old infrastructure as needed with new wind, water and solar generation. Maybe people will be a little more comfortable with that and a little more willing to put one of the 1.7 billion photovoltaic systems on their own roof.

Read the paper in the journal Energy Policy, Part 1 (600KB PDF) and Part 2 (680KB PDF)

Via Green Tech, cnet News

You Say You Want a Revolution

A recurring theme at the recently held fourth World Future Energy Summit (WFES) was that the transformation to a clean energy future requires a new way of thinking. That new way of thinking was best described by Lord Nicholas Stern, Chair of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London School of Economics. “In order that climate change targets can be achieved, we face the need for a new industrial revolution. That industrial revolution needs policy change as a driver to reach the scale of change required. With fundamentally strong policy, we can also increase the pace of that change.”

One such policy shift described at the summit is government fuel subsidies. “Government subsidies of energy fuels leads to inefficiencies and waste through artificially high use,” said Dr. Fatih Birol, Chief Economist of International Energy Agency. “Coupled with the current gas glut this poses a real threat to future investment in renewables.”

Another policy shift is to refocus sustainable infrastructure development from established economies to emerging economies. “Developing countries offer a ‘clean sheet’ for renewable technologies as they often do not have the old technologies and infrastructure that developed economies have”, said Rene Umlauft, CEO Renewable Energy, Siemens, Germany. “This means that they can ‘leapfrog’ the problems that developed countries have in replacing old energy systems, making them a key investment market.”

Closer to Home

But policy shifts that drive green energy and sustainability are more than just ideas voiced at environmental summits. Closer to home, the Ontario government’s policies are the drivers of change.

In 2007, the Ontario Power Authority developed a 20-year energy policy that focused on “creating a sustainable energy supply, targeted to improving current natural gas and renewable assets at a sustainable and realistic cost.” That plan included the very successful Feed-in-Tariff program wherein small energy producers using renewable energy sources were paid for surplus power supplied to the grid.

In 2009, the Ontario government introduced its Green Energy and Green Economy Act and its Long-Term Energy Plan (660KB PDF) as an update of the 2007 plan.

During the 1990s, five coal-fired plants, all operated by Ontario Power Generation (OPG), supplied up to 25 per cent of Ontario’s electricity. With the Long-Term Plan, all coal-fired units will be phased out by December 31, 2014. In doing so, Ontario will become the first jurisdiction in North America to eliminate coal-fired generation.

Closing coal plants actually started in 2005 when OPG decommissioned the Lakeshore generating station in Mississauga, Ontario. In 2010, it shut down two units at Nanticoke and two at Lambton generating station. Two more units at Nanticoke are scheduled to be shut down in 2011. Nanticoke was the largest coal-fired generating station in North America and the largest single emitter of greenhouse gases in Canada.

To make up for lost generating capacity, the single unit at the Atikokan plant in northern Ontario is being converted to burn biomass consisting of wood pellets and agricultural by-products. Two of the three units at Thunder Bay will be converted to natural gas. As well, units at Nanticoke and Lambton may be converted to burn gas or biomass.

Ontario expects that nuclear power will continue to provide up to 50 per cent of its electricity. This may call for refurbishment and modernization of units at the Darlington, Pickering and Bruce nuclear generating stations as well as the addition of two to four new reactors at Darlington.

The province will add capacity through upgrades to, and new construction of, hydropower facilities, wind farms and solar parks. Ontario already leads the country in wind and solar capacity.

Existing Feed-in-Tariff programs, which initially included biomass, biogas, landfill gas, wind, solar and small hydro, will be expanded to include small combined heat and power projects.

While policy is driving change in Ontario, it may not be the only driver. The first Industrial Revolution was driven by innovation and technology that allowed mass production. Similarly, recent advances have contributed to the economic viability of renewable resources such as wind power and solar photovoltaic energy and to the more efficient use of conventional fuels in new technologies such as combined cycle gas turbines. Without these advances, implementing policy change might be prohibitively expensive.

Held in Abu Dhabi and hosted by Masdar, an Abu Dhabi based renewable energy and sustainable technology organization, the WFES is an annual event that promotes innovation and investment opportunities surrounding renewable energy and the environment. This year’s meeting was attended by more than 26,000 visitors from 137 countries. Delegates included political leaders, international policy makers, industry experts, investors,and academics.

All Aboard!

If you have trust issues, this isn’t for you.

A group in Europe is collaborating on the development of  the SATRE project. The road train project uses technology to link up vehicles behind a truck that sets the pace for the group. Researchers are trying to answer the question “How close would you drive to the car in front of you when you are not in control?”

The first successful demonstration of the technology that controls and links the line of cars has been completed at the Volvo Proving Ground close to Gothenburg, Sweden. The ultimate goal of the project is to be able to implement this platooning or convoy approach to driving in order to improve both safety and fuel efficiency on Europe’s highways.

But really, do you really want to hurdle down the highway at 90 km per hour, hands free, reading the paper or enjoying your breakfast burrito as technology takes it’s turn at getting you safely to the office? Wait a minute, that might not be bad.

But just because we can, doesn’t always mean we should.

E3 Roundtable Discussion Continues

The third of four E³ (energy, environment, economy) Roundtables was held in Calgary January 17^th, 2010. Hosted by Corporate Knights magazine and sponsored by Enbridge, the Roundtables “provide for a discussion that will support the development of visionary energy policy options for the whole of Canada.”

Central to the discussion was the theme question “Most Canadians expect that we all will eventually transition from carbon-based to low-carbon energy. How do we make it happen in a way that unites rather than divides?”

While five of the six panelists agreed with the necessity for an energy policy or strategy, David Keith, Director, ISEEE Energy and Environmental Systems Group, sees the need for a “climate policy” because the prime driver for an energy policy is climate.

Preston Manning, President & CEO, Manning Centre for Building Democracy, presented four key principles toward an energy policy, foremost of which is the need for proper measurement of the environmental aspects of all energy sources, not just oil and gas.

Marlo Raynolds, Senior Advisor, Pembina Institute, spoke to Canada focusing too much on fossil fuels. A national energy policy has to focus on greenhouse gas emissions and include renewable energy and energy efficiency in the economy.

According to Roger Gibbons, President & CEO, Canada West Foundation, hydropower and hydrocarbons form Canada’s competitive advantage and going forward we must focus on producing them in better ways.

Both Eric Axford, Senior Vice President, Suncor Energy Inc., and Eric Miller, Senior Vice President, Nexen Inc., cite technology and innovation as keys to achieving energy sustainability.

Most agreed that ultimately, if we all make the right personal choices, we won’t need an energy policy.

Smart, Powerful and Recognized

Image BC Hydro

Across the country, energy efficiency measures are some of the most concrete ways we have of using our energy better. Prince Edward Island, for example, has an entire office devoted to energy efficiency, and Ontario’s smart metering program has already installed 4.1 million smart meters in homes, with an ultimate goal of 4.4 million. Efficiency is important, and that’s why BC Hydro recently recognized 26 individuals and businesses through its Power Smart Excellence Awards, praising their leading roles in energy conservation.

The 14 awards include categories like the Power Smart Leaders, awarded to “customers that continuously demonstrate a best-in-class approach to strategic energy management and an ongoing commitment to energy conservation in BC.” This year, the award was given to both Simon Fraser University and Sinclar Group Forest Products. Other categories include “New Technology,” awarded to companies that develop innovative conservation technology, and “Sustainable Communities,” recognizing local governments and developers whose actions have included entire communities. Eleven organizations earned BC Hydro’s “Leadership Excellence” designation, given to organizations that have already earned been recognized as Power Smart Leaders.

BC Hydro’s customers account for about two thirds of the energy consumed in the province. According to BC’s provincial energy minister, Bill Bennett, “we are counting on their commitment as we work together toward achieving our provincial target of meeting 66 per cent of the province’s future electricity needs through conservation by 2020.”

This is the eighth year for the program, which will now promote its winners through a province-wide online and print advertising campaign. The hope is that the winners will encourage British Columbians across the province to change the way they use energy, just as organizations across the country are trying to reach Canadians.

Winners

• Power Smart Leaders: Simon Fraser University and Sinclar Group Forest Products Ltd.
• Leadership Excellence:
  • Abbotsford School District (34)
  • Canadian Autoparts Toyota Inc.
  • City of Richmond
  • Hudson’s Bay Company
  • Kwantlen Polytechnic University
  • Molson Coors Canada
  • Overwaitea Food Group
  • The University of British Columbia
  • Vancity
  • Vancouver Coastal Health Authority
  • Vancouver Airport Authority
  • Workplace Conservation Leadership: City of Dawson Creek
• Larry Bell Award: Dr. John Robinson
• Energy Conservation Commitment: Canadian Tire Corporation
• Energy Manager: Fraser Health Authority
• Sustainable Communities: Millennium Development Corporation and the City of Vancouver
• New Construction: Encana Corporation
• New Technology: Taseko Mines Limited
• Conservation Partner: BC Food Processors Association
• Consumer Product Manufacturer: Philips Lighting
• Residential Builder/Developer: Glacier Creek Pacific Contracting Ltd.
• Lighting Retailer: The Home Depot
• Appliance Retailer: Sears Canada Inc.
• Electronics Retailer: Best Buy Canada

Ontario’s energy, in the long term

It’s easy to use energy, but it’s a lot harder to manage energy use in the long term. That’s why Ontario is soliciting feedback from consumers on its upcoming “Long-Term Energy Plan,” asking Ontarians to shape the way that they use their energy for the next 20 years.

Across the country, provincial and territorial governments have released documents that outline strategies designed to improve consumers’ efficiency and reduce our emissions. They all share an increased emphasis on renewable power sources, energy efficiency measures and long-term planning.

In particular, the efficiency and emissions of our energy systems have a lot to do with the mix of sources we use. For example, in 2009, Canada’s electricity production broke down into: hydro (61.7 per cent), fossil fuels (21.3 per cent), nuclear (14.7 per cent) and wind (0.3 per cent), with a small amount solar generation. An energy source has huge consequences for cost and emissions, and with energy use continuing to increase along with our concern for the environment it’s no wonder that all energy strategies are concerned with a province’s energy mix.

At the moment, Ontario is one of the remaining provinces without an overarching strategy document. Its previous plan, the Integrated Power System Plan (IPSP), was presented to the Ontario Energy Board in 2007, but was never formally approved. The province doesn’t want for energy-related initiatives — its Green Energy Act has produced a variety of programs, such as the Feed-In Tariff (FIT) program — but it lacks a consolidated document that outlines the long-term energy mix. Now, the IPSP has become the Long-Term Energy Plan, and that plan is open to public input.

On the Ontario Ministry of Energy’s front page, participants can answer 10 open-ended questions about energy, like “How should increased costs to Ontarians be weighed against other goals in power system planning?” and “How do you think the electricity demands of families and businesses will change over the next 20 years in Ontario?” Together, these answers will guide the plan that will ultimately be submitted to the Ontario Energy Board for review in 2011, likely after the provincial election in October.

It’s a safe bet that the province will still continue to use nuclear power, which currently accounts for 50 per cent of their electricity needs, and that non-hydro renewables will continue to play a relatively small part in the total mix. In the long term, though, it’s hard to predict exactly how the energy mix will change, considering the province is already rolling out millions of smart meters and other next-generation energy technologies. But for now, anyway, the consumers who use energy are going to have to be the ones suggesting how to manage it.

Big Brother is watching… your energy efficiency

There are plenty of ways to check your energy efficiency. In Ontario, for example, you can book a Home Energy Audit, saving up to $150 on the audit itself. The federal ecoENERGY program used to offer pre-retrofit evaluations that provided rebates on energy-efficient appliances, but the ecoENERGY Retrofit program was cancelled effective March 31, 2010. And, audits or no, you can always buy more efficient appliances and ensure that drafts and other gaps in your home’s insulation are taken care of.

Still if home audits are too costly, and you don’t like the idea of someone poking around your home, perhaps you’d be more interested in a plane taking infrared photos of your house. Live like you’re in 1984… in 2010!

All right, it’s not really as frightening as George Orwell’s dystopic vision of the future, but a Belgian company has successfully used thermal maps taken by a plane flying over Antwerp to measure the heat loss from houses’ roofs. It’s an unobtrusive way of measuring the amount of energy being lost by a house, and given our existing comfort with public satellite data like the kind found on Google Maps, it’s not hard to imagine that we might eventually be able to access this kind of image from the comfort of our computer. At the same time, it begs the question of just how public we want our energy consumption habits to be.

It might not be double plus good, but it’s certainly not bad either.

Via Popular Science

Keeping “Green” Green

We’d all rather make environmentally sensitive choices about our energy use, especially given the financial incentives for energy efficiency. And with large-scale changes like Nova Scotia’s plan to increase its provincial renewable energy targets from 25 to 40 per, there’s strong evidence that these changes can be made on a considerable scale.

But there’s always room to be cautious about the steps we take forward, especially when there’s evidence that the steps we’re so certain are helping the planet might be nothing but a green shell around old ideas.

In a recent article in the Globe and Mail, for example, University of Toronto professor Dan Harvey cried foul on recent developments in Toronto’s downtown core. Noting that the focus on glass facades creates a veritable heat trap — a perfect example of how passive solar heating can work (even if unintentionally) — Harvey suggests that no matter other fancy energy features might be included, bad design will fundamentally undercut any other initiatives.

Harvey’s comments don’t just suggest an isolated example in Toronto either. With the growing trend of “green” renovations, consumers need to be clear that making a building more energy efficient doesn’t just include its most obvious features. The fundamentals of our energy use, as always, are the main factors in determining whether we’re making smart energy choices. And there will always be temptations to accept greenwashing, because, after all: it feels good to think you’re a savvy energy consumer.

The future of energy is certainly going to include a new energy mix that includes renewable as well as non-renewable sources, coupled with a heavy dose of energy efficiency. And for that future to be different than our present, we need to ask hard questions about the well-meaning steps we take along the way.

Efficiency labelling for water fixtures

The Speech from the Throne, opening a new session of the Ontario legislature was delivered March 8, and among the new programs announced is the Water Opportunities Act.

The Act is envisioned as a vehicle to make Ontario “the North American leader in the development and sale of new technologies and services for water conservation and treatment.”

Generally speaking, when government comes out with a new program related to conservation and the environment, stakeholder groups are quick to lament that the program doesn’t go far enough or that it completely fails to address the problem. However, this time water conservation groups were generally positive. In a media release, Great Lakes United even suggested some strategies the Ontario Government may wish to pursue, one of which was to launch an efficiency labelling program for water fixtures.

However, a quick visit to the Web would indicate that such standards are already in place. Natural Resources Canada’s water conservation Web page suggests that low-flow showerheads are those that deliver less than 9.5 litres per minute compared to older models that use 14 litres per minute. Similarly, low-flow toilets use six litres per flush or less.

These may not be hard and fast definitions, similar to the Energy Star® program wherein products must meet certain energy use and efficiency criteria before they can display the Energy Star® symbol. However, if they aren’t hard and fast, then establishing such a program would be in the best interests of water conservation.

Next Page »