Bullfrog "Powered" or Bullfrog "Offset"

These signs are popping up more and more. Businesses, residents and events are attempting to have a greener image bysigning a contract with Bullfrog Power. According to the Bullfrog website, Nova Scotian consumers can “green” their electricity for 2cents/kWh, a roughly 16% premium.

Bullfrog came to Nova Scotia a few years ago after establishing itself as a very successful green electricity retailer. In markets such as Ontario and Alberta, electricity is produced, distributed and sold by separate parties in an open market. This allows consumers to choose from whom they buy their electricity. In Nova Scotia, we have no such option. Nova Scotia Power produces, transmits and retails over 98% of our electricity. Love it or hate it, we have no choice (unless you live in one of the 5/6 small municipal utilities, where you still have no choice, it is just not NS Power).

So, this begs the question: If Nova Scotia Power produces and sells all of our electricity, how can Bullfrog Power sell green electricity to consumers that are looking to make a difference? The answer is simple: they can’t.

What actually takes place when a consumer signs up with Bullfrog Power in Nova Scotia is that they are sold Renewable Energy Credits (RECs). RECs are produced when “green” electricity is sold in two parts – physical energy and the environmental attributes. The main reason that this is done is that in open electricity markets, physical energy and the environmental attributes are priced separately. It is somewhat similar, but not has popular or as well regulated as a carbon credit.

So, when Nova Scotia consumers sign up with Bullfrog they purchase enough RECs to offset their traditional consumption from Nova Scotia Power. This is perfectly legitimate, and ultimately a good thing. The problem is that very few Bullfrog customers understand the difference between purchasing physical energy and purchasing offsets. And Bullfrog doesn’t help increase their understanding.

I’ve thought about this issue a lot, and I’ve determined this misconception comes down to the use of the word “powered”. All Bullfrog customers get well-branded logos claiming that their home, business or event is “Bullfrog Powered”. The term “powered” implies a physical transfer of energy. In Nova Scotia, this isn’t true. The source of electricity for the consumer, and even Nova Scotia as a whole, remains unchanged. While I’m sure Bullfrog’s contracts and legalese are all completely accurate, the use of the word “powered” is misleading.

Bullfrog “Offset” would be far more accurate for their Nova Scotia customers.

This is a complicated issue, so an example might help explain it better. Airline passengers often have the chance to offset their greenhouse gas emissions associated with their flight. Carbon Credits are produced by projects such as tree planting, methane capture and renewable energy, then used to offset the emissions from burning fossil fuels to power the plane. This is very similar to what Bullfrog does in Nova Scotia. By no means could the airline claim that no emissions are coming out of their plane, they are simply being offset by a project somewhere else in the world.

Bullfrog purchases its RECs from a wind farm in PEI (which is not connected to Nova Scotia), that sells electricity into New England through New Brunswick. You’ll often hear that green electricity is injected into the “regional grid” but they fail to tell you that that electricity is then exported. To my knowledge, Bullfrog has no agreement to transfer energy into the Nova Scotia grid.

Recently, I heard a Bullfrog customer claim that green electricity was injected into the “Halifax Grid”, which couldn’t be further from the truth, and ultimately inspired me to write all this down for the record.

So, while offsetting your electricity is a good thing to do, next time you see something claiming to be powered by green electricity in Nova Scotia, unless they produce green energy onsite, tell them they should know better.

Believe the Facts, not the Fossil Fuel Industry

In a recent blog post, it was discussed that there is a common misconception that wind energy doesn’t actually reduce GHG emissions. Ultimately, I think this misconception is based on the fact that the wind doesn’t blow all the time, but in reality, there is very little evidence to back up these claims.

In the previously mentioned blog post (found HERE ), Bruce Wark, of The Coast , questioned if wind energy was even green at all. I’m not sure what helped form his misguided opinion, but it may have come from the millions of dollars the fossil fuel industry is spending to convince people that wind energy doesn’t reduce emissions.

Michael Goggin of the American Wind Energy Association recently posted a detailed and well referenced article disputing these claims and providing proof that wind energy reduces even more energy than might be anticipated.

That article can be found HERE

Within 6 months or so, Nova Scotia will have a number of new wind farms online. The Dalhousie Mountain wind farm came online earlier this year, and the Digby Wind Power Project, Nutby Mountain and Point Tupper Projects will all be online before the end of the year, while Shear Wind’s Glen Dhu will be online shortly after that. Based on the evidence put forth in the attached argument, Nova Scotia can look forward to real emissions reductions from these facilities, even more than we might have originally imagined.

The Coasts "Blow Job" article is misleading and misguided

If I took the time to respond to every misguided or uninformed opinion about wind energy that I come across, I wouldn’t much time for left for anything else. However once and a while there is an article that is so biased and off the mark that I feel an obligation to respond. Bruce Wark’s recent “Blow Job” cover story in The Coast this week is one such article.

The premise behind this article is that the Nova Scotia is ignoring negative health impacts of wind turbines and questions the benefits of wind energy with respect to its “green” attributes. In discussing the health impacts he reviews information from the existing Pubnico, Nova Scotia and Mars Hill, Maine Wind Farms, as well as concerns over the soon to be built Glen Dhu wind farm in Pictou County. In discussing whether wind energy is even “green” at all, he infers that the intermittent nature of wind energy somehow prevents the energy produced from offsetting fossil fuel sources.

I take issue with Bruce Wark on both of these fronts, and I explain why below. I also feel that the issues of Economics and Energy Security have been completely missed in his assessment of this industry in Nova Scotia, which I also discuss below.

Health Impacts and Aesthetics
The wind makes noise. The wind makes noise when it encounters buildings, trees, and even itself, and wind turbines are no different. The good thing is that noise is very well studied and understood, and appropriate levels can be set for development guidelines. As a society, we do very little to limit noise. There are very few restrictions on noise, specifically for vehicles, heating and cooling systems, and equipment. Sound is measured in decibels, and the sound levels emitted from wind turbines is well studied.

Wind farms should be developed with setbacks that ensure the sound emitted from the turbines is below the ambient sound at a given that given time. A common concern is that on a calm day, wind turbines will be very audible, but on calm days, the wind turbines won’t be spinning.

We now know that there are homes that are likely too close to the wind turbines in Pubnico. That being said, people have moved into the area since the turbines were installed, and the wind farm is now considered a very positive attraction for the community.

The NS Dept of Energy recently completed a very balanced short film on Pubnico, which is available HERE .

I don’t know much about the Mars Hill project, but from the pictures there are some homes very close to the wind turbines. In Pubnico, Daniel D’Entremont’s home is less than 200m from the nearest wind turbine. Most projects currently under development in Nova Scotia now have set backs from over three times this distance.

Regarding the people concerned about the Glen Dhu project, I understand the frustration associated with not knowing specifics about the wind farm and I also understand the challenges faced by Shear Wind to build a project of that size in Nova Scotia.
However, with distances over 1km from the nearest turbines, there is truly no way that they will be affected by the noise from the turbines. What is really at issue here, is that aesthetics of the landscape. Just like Anne Murray, they just don’t want to look at them. Aesthetics are subjective, there are no units to measure like sound, and therefore, it is very hard to plan around. Unpleasing aesthetics have never made anyone sick.

We need to be careful not to confuse the subjective and objective issues in this debate, which was not done in this article. The vast majority of people like how they look, which is also evident in the Pubnico video.

To truly analyze the health impacts of wind energy one must compare them to the health effectives of the alternatives. Where the health effects of someone living too close to a wind turbine are easy to point at, the health impacts from our addiction to fossil fuels are more subtle, but also far more damaging.

Nova Scotia has the highest emissions in the industrialized world, for GHGs, mercury, SOx, NOx and many others. We also have the highest asthma and cancer rates in the county.

In addition to the health affects here were we use fossil fuels, there are also health affects where that energy is mined and produced. BP’s gulf oil spill is the most obvious example, but there are also coal mining deaths in Virginia, Columbia and other places we buy coal. Striping mining is common for coal mining, so entire ecosystems are being demolished for our energy supply.

Oil Spills just don’t happen somewhere else too, just ask the folks in Albro Lake whose house will have to be demolished because their oil tank leaked. And stuff like this happens every week in Nova Scotia.

Reports from Ontario, who has done a lot of work on the health impacts of both fossil fuels and wind energy show that every taxpayer pays $1000’s every year in health care taxes due to our use of fossil fuels. (Source: health effects of wind energy on health care costs of fossil fuels see Pages 17-20 of this 2008 SWFI Paper )

And one can’t forget the global effects of climate change. Floods, heat waves, droughts, hurricanes and other natural disasters are getting more damaging and happening more often.

So while we need to make sure wind turbines are properly sited, there is really no comparison between the health impacts of wind energy versus fossil fuels.

Is Wind really “Green”?
While green is a completely subjective word, to imply that wind energy doesn’t reduce fossil fuel consumption or ghg emissions are completely false. It is true that increasing amounts of wind energy on our electrical grid will require technical upgrades ,but those are as much a result of the inability of thermal plants to change their output, as it is of wind turbines to change theirs.

The truth is that every kWh produced by a wind turbine offsets a kWh of fossil fuel based energy, and since it is more decentralized, you can argue the energy offset is closer to 1.1kWh for every 1kWh of wind energy. This also means that every unit of wind energy reduces our ghg emissions and water consumption associated with fossil fuel consumptions. Currently this rate in Nova Scotia is close to 0.8 tonnes of GHGs for every 1000kWh. That number would multiply by close to three times if full life cycle emissions were analyzed.

Therefore, any claims that wind energy isn’t good for our environment are completely misleading.

Energy Pricing and Security.
The costs of fossil fuels will always trend upwards over time. Over the past 20 years or so, this rate is between 6%-13% per year. This is often referred to as energy inflation, which is far greater than regular inflation. Renewable Energy sources like wind and solar that don’t have a fuel associated with them, don’t have this problem. They can offer a fixed price over a long period of time. For wind energy, these prices are very competitive in today’s dollars versus other sources that aren’t fixed, which means the economic advantage will only grow over time. All of the wind energy projects built or being built in Nova Scotia has a fixed price associated with them.

Since Nova Scotia is extremely dependant on fossil fuels, these wind energy projects give us a distinct economic advantage over the alternative.

In addition to being addicted to fossil fuels, Nova Scotia is also addicted to importing energy. Over $1Billion/year leaves Nova Scotia every year to purchase fossil fuels for Electricity Consumption. Renewable energy offers an opportunity to spend that money inside Nova Scotia, and put it to work in our rural communities that sorely need it.

In Nova Scotia, the price of electricity is a tremendous concern, and one that surely keeps our government awake at night. We can’t lose track of the fact that renewable energy is the answer to these concerns, not the cause.

As you can see, I have many issues with this latest article about wind energy in The Coast. The Coast has presented many of the arguments I’ve made above in previous articles, and have given me personally the opportunity to participate in the discussion. I hope that future reporting on this issue is objective, and that the urge to simply create controversies out of nothing in order to sell more papers and advertising that is so common in the media these days is resisted.

Harper in the way, Australia changing course

Stephen Harper continues to show the world that the government of Canada is not interested in setting binding targets to reduce GHG emissions. This most recent declaration took place at the Commonwealth summit in Uganda this week. All of the 53 Commonwealth nations were in favour of binding targets expect for Canada and Australia. The push for binding charges was lead by Malta, a small island county who may cease to exist if sea waters rise due to inaction on climate change.

The good news this weekend is that this will be the last international meeting that Australia will be standing next to Harper (and Bush) against binding emission targets. John Howard, who has led Australia for over 10 years suffered a major defeat in a federal election yesterday. And what was the major platform of Kevin Rudd, the man who won this resounding electoral victory? Commitment to Kyoto and binding emissions reductions. If only we could be so lucky here in Canada. Despite Canadians insisting that the environment is the most important issue for voters, there has been little resistance from Canada's other political parties. Hopefully, that will change soon.

The spokesperson for Harper at the conference said that they want to continue to push for the targets agreed upon at the recent APEC summit, which are "aspirational" targets for 2050. Imagine if the Allies had said that "We would certainly like to get rid of Hitler?" rather than taking action.

Harper's continued efforts against real emission reductions will soon make its way to the world stage. Almost every county in the world will be in Bali in December to discuss the follow up to the Kyoto accord, which ends in 2012. I guarantee that Canada will be one of the few nations, along with the US and China, that are against the further strengthening of emission targets. Harper has managed to take Canada form a world leader, to one of the most stubborn opponents to taking action on the greatest crisis the world has ever faced. All in the name of protecting the Tar Sands.

Canada needs a new leader, so our planet can survive. But hey, at least we'll have 5% GST soon.

Uranium Isn't Missed

I was very upset to read the article in this morning's Chronicle Herald entitled Uranium ban "A Lost Opportunity". The article is based on an interview with Ken Chernin of Acadian Securities. Since Mr. Chernin is in the financial industry, which has a long history of only looking for profits and never taking into the unaccounted costs of environmentally unfriendly business practices, I wasn't as upset with him as I was with NS Natural Resources Minister David Morse.

Minister Morse replied to Mr. Chernin's comments by saying that the "science is credible" and he wants to know what Nova Scotian's think. I was so upset by his comments that I wrote a letter to the editor of the CH. I've included this letter below in the likely case that it isn't published. However, being limited to 200 words, I wasn't able to fit in everything wrong with this article.

My major concern is that our government talks the sustainability-and-green-economy talk, but then turns around and says "nuclear energy is part of the solution". There are many many issues with this.. including

• mining uranium is absolutely devastating to local ecology, causing radioactive pollution to both the workers that mine and contamination of local flora and fauna
  
• nuclear development is extremely expensive, and traditionally requires millions of dollars of government investment and subsidy to even get started
• although little GHG Emissions are emitted in producing nuclear energy, the process of mining Uranium is extremely emission intense
• centralized energy works against renewable energy production
• storage of radioactive waste is still a unsolved issue
• production of nuclear energy causes extremely large amounts of water loss due to vapour.
• Both Uranium mining and nuclear production would have to be done by out of province companies, ensuring that any profits from these activities end up far from Nova Scotia.
  

I wonder if Mr Chernin was considering all these negative aspects when he said "it couldn't hurt".

On top of all these issues is the fact that what our government should be doing is increasing energy efficiency and encouraging locally owned distributed renewable energy, as I mention in my letter below.

Nova Scotians need to be aware that Nuclear Energy is on the agenda of both our current government, and our privately held monopoly utility, and we all need to make it very clear that is isn't on the agenda of the people of this province.

Uranium Isn't Missed

The comments from Natural Resource Minister David Morse in response to the interview with Ken Chernin from Acadian Securities should cause all Nova Scotians great concern. (Uranium Ban "A missed Opportunity" - Oct 12) Mr. Chernin is right that we are missing opportunities in Nova Scotia , but he is wrong that those opportunities lie in spending huge amounts of money to mine and develop Uranium in Nova Scotia. The missed opportunities are the two basic principals that NS should be embracing in order to effectively reduce emissions, and increase sustainability and energy security: renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Minister Morse wants to know what Nova Scotians think about spending “enormous capital expenditures” to locate uranium deposits, and eventually pillage our landscape to spread radioactive waste around our beautiful province. How can he not know the answer to this question???

To remind him: Nova Scotians have made it very clear. They want NS to keep its Uranium Ban, and they want the government to live up to its promises from 2002 regarding renewable energy and come up with a better plan for the $10 Million Clean Nova Scotia budget to encourage efficiency than giving away free CFLs!

It's not just the heat...

An interesting study was recently published this week in the journal Nature. The study showed that yet another affect of man-made emissions of GHG's is increasing humidity. As this article from the Associated Press notes.. "it's not just the heat, its the humidity".. an ironic cliche. The study notes that humidity will raise 6% with every 1 degree raise in temperature. The 40degree humidex they had in Toronto last week starts to make a little more sense now, doesn't it?

Humidity plays a large role on the stress that heat causes on the human body. This was more than evident in the record European heat wave of 2003 that caused over 35,000 deaths; most of which were elderly due to their higher susceptibility to both heat and humidity. Humidity also causes increased evaporation, as well as prolonged heat during the night in urban areas, because of the increased the heating effect on concrete and asphalt structures. Lastly, like many climate change phenomena, it is in itself a contributer to global warming, as water vapour can trap heat in the atmosphere causing yet another vicious circle (similar to the melting arctic ice).

What this article doesn't mention is if the raise in temperature is the only cause of this increased humidity. I wouldn't be surprised if coal and nuclear thermal plants play a large role in adding humidity to the atmosphere. To generate electricity using coal or nuclear, water is boiled into steam which then powers a turbine. Most of this steam then turns back into water and is reheated, or returned from where it came (river, lake, ocean etc). However, about 2L/kWh for coal and 3L/kWh for nuclear is lost as water vapour into the atmosphere. This isn't that huge a problem in Nova Scotia, because we use salt water from the ocean, but it is having extremely negative consequences in Ontario and Alberta, where fresh water is being used. (this steam turbine technology was invented in 1884, in case you wondered about the technology that powers your iPod)

On a very related issue, the Great Lakes are at an all time low, as Ontario plans to bring its second nuclear reactor online and as higher temperatures cause increased evaporation. (here).

Nuclear Harper

Stephen Harper is certainly making his positions regarding climate change and energy clear to Canadians to week.
First, Harper announced that he would delay the opening of the House of Commons until the Throne Speech in October. What this means is that any unpassed pieces of legislation will "die on the house floor". Even though Canadians have repeatedly said that the environment is at the top of their priorities, the revised Bill C-30 - The Clean Air and Climate Change Act (fresh with the efforts of the three opposition parties... who as I've said before represent a majority of Canadians) will be lost. Therefore, this brings the total accomplishments of Canada's New Government to two items: 1) canceling and repackaging the programs of the previous government, while making them more expensive for Canadians and 2) shoveling a small amount of money to the provinces to deal with the problem. Canada needs a strong national program so that all emitters are treated equally. The main argument for the Conservative government has always been that the Kyoto Targets are too steep. However, in a preliminary meeting held in Vienna recently to discuss post-Kyoto targets the targets discussed were 25%-30% below 1990 levels by 2020. This represents a 15%-20% more than Kyoto. Therefore, wouldn't the best plan to avoid the "economic collapse" the Conservatives have continually warned us about be to start reducing emissions and encouraging new technology now???

On top of Harper's negligence regarding GHG Emissions on the domestic front, he is also secretly considering committing Canada to join George Bush's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership on the international front. Press stories earlier this week show that although nothing has been said to parliament or the public, Harper has been working on committing Canada to this group for over a year. The basics of this group would give Canada stronger markets to export its Uranium, however, it would commit Canada to taking the spent radioactive fuel back for storage within Canada. The main reason for this is that the US is running out of room in it's existing nuclear waste storage facility (Yucca Mountain).

Despite how Harper's plan to turn Canada into a storage bin for Bush's radioactive pollution might turn your stomach, the biggest concern about Nuclear energy is the amount of water it uses. According to the Sierra Club of Canada, Nuclear reactors use at least 2.3L of water per kWh. With the Great Lakes at an all time low and much of North America suffering from severe drought, we need to take care of our fresh water sources the best we can. Although Nuclear reactors do emit less GHG's, Canada does not need to destroy its last great resource, fresh water, in order to reduce emissions.

Here in Nova Scotia, there has been a "No-Nuclear" act since the 70's. We need to make sure it stays that way, so that when the change from coal happens, that it's to renewable energy, not nuclear energy.

"Canada's New Government" fails again

Once again, Steven Harper's Conservative government has acted against the wishes of the vast majority of Canadians by failing to issue a credible plan to meet Canada's international obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. In response to a Liberal private member's Bill calling for the government of Canada to table a credible plan to meet the Kyoto guidelines, the Conservatives issued a 37 page "excuse of why government is not willing to take appropriate action to help protect the future of Canadians and the planet", said the Climate Action Network. The Climate Action Network is a joint effort by major environmental and sustainability groups formed to provide a unified voice regarding climate change issues in Canada. The governments plan is still based on "intensity" targets (see GWB's Grand Plan - June 7th) rather than hard caps on emissions, and will leave Canada more than 30% above its Kyoto Targets. All three federal opposition parties voted in favour of this private members bill, (which represents more than 60% of the voting public), so Harper can hardly say that he is acting in the interests of the majority of Canadians. Harper claims to be protecting Canadians from economic collapse, however, he is really only protecting the unbridled pillaging of our natural resources by foreign companies (Alberta), and our burning of dirty fossil fuels from other countries (Nova Scotia).
See the press release from the Climate Action Network - here

In other news:

• Arctic Sea Ice Shrinks to lowest area ever - article
  
• Making Global Warming Profitable - stories of substantial economic success in countries that are aggressively reducing their GHG Emissions - article
  
• Glace Bay Wind Farm Commissioned - Province's second larges wind farm is now online. Note comments from the Premier saying "The future of power is renewable energy", and that the Province has the policies in place for to create "green economy". How ensuring the profitability, monopoly status and marketshare of the Canada's 5th largest emitter creates a "green economy", I'm not quite sure. -article
  

Natural Gas in Halifax

The Provincial Government has played a pivotal role in bringing Natural Gas to the Halifax peninsula, and helped the supplier, Heritage Gas secure an "anchor" client in Capital Health. This change will bring a reduction in GHG emissions, since natural gas does burn cleaner than the source it is replacing, heating oil, however, I would hardly agree with the statement from Heritage Gas that it is "environmentally friendly" nor do I think it is a wise investment for the future of Halifax.

Natural Gas gets off easy when it comes to fossil fuel's affect on the environment, even though it is a highly exhaustible source (just like oil) that still emits lots of GHG emissions. The Government press release noted that this conversion will reduce GHG Emissions by 20,000 tonnes, which is a good thing, but installing 4 utility scale wind turbines would have the same effect with much less cost.

The people of Halifax and Nova Scotia must also stop to think if this is a wise investment economically. The price of natural gas is still highly volatile, and most of the worlds reserves have been found and are being extracted. Even our own offshore reserves are in decline. NS has done well exporting natural gas to New England, and why have we mostly exported it?? because it is more expensive than our current sources. Rather than exclusively being a seller of a limited resource with large price fluctuations, our provincial government and Heritage Gas are spending millions of dollars making the people of Nova Scotia buyers of it has well. The price of natural gas has come down over the past two years, but it only takes a basic understanding of supply and demand to realize that when supply is limited, price will go up. Where does Premier MacDonald and Minister Dooks think the price of natural gas will be in 10 years? or 25 years? It is increasingly expensive to run our health care system due to shifting demographics, and yet our government is investing millions to guarantee that the costs of operating our health care facilities will continue to increase. Not only will the price continue to increase, but the price of natural gas is actually more volatile than the oil it is replacing. All it would take is one big storm or one terrorist attack, and it could mean drastic increases in the cost to Nova Scotians to run our hospitals overnight.

In order to be truly environmentally friendly, and economically wise, the government needs to support using renewable energy sources to power our businesses, institutions and residences. Energy Minister Bill Dooks said in the government's press release "Nova Scotia has tremendous natural-gas potential -- we've got it, let's use it". Why doesn't "we've got it, let's use it" apply to renewable sources?? Not only do we have a far greater resource potential than natural gas in both wind and tidal , it doesn't require millions of millions of dollars of government infrastructure subsidization to succeed. All it needs is the opportunity to compete.