Two Important Bills

Two weeks ago marked the long awaiting re-opening of the NS Legislature. Since that time, over 90 Bills have been tabled. Everything from amending the Trade Union Act to the mandatory reporting of gunshot wounds. However, lost in all the spin and publicity were two bills from the NDP, that were actually the most progressive Bills this province has ever seen regarding climate change and renewable energy. They were:

Bill No. 71 - Community-based Energy Development Act (C-BED)

and

Bill No. 89 - Carbon Offsets Fund Act


Both of these Bills were tabled as private member's bills. Bill 71 by the NDP Energy Critic, Frank Corbett, and Bill 89 by Graham Steele the NDP Environment Critic.

The C-BED Act brings forward two ideals that that have helped made places like Denmark and Germany world leaders in Renewable Energy: 1) Community Ownership and 2) Advanced Renewable Tariffs. This Bill would require the UARB to set rates for NS Power to purchase renewable energy from community based projects under 10MW. Setting rates allows smaller organizations develop projects while ensuring they get a good return for their investment. Community owned renewable energy, or Community Power as it tends to be called, has been proven to provide 5 to 10 times more economic benefits and employment than projects owned by out-of-town companies.

The Carbon Offset Fund Act is quite simple. It would establish a fund in which NS Companies that wish to go "carbon neutral" can invest. Those funds would then be used to promote renewable energy projects. It's a long way from project-based carbon trading markets, however, it helps companies become more carbon aware, helps encourage renewable energy, and helps all of Nova Scotia prepare for the inevitable carbon markets we will all have to work within.

While the Department of Energy is traveling around the province asking for public input for a revised Energy Strategy (to replace the strategy that they got public input on in 2001, but never acted on), kudos should go to the NDP, for actually trying to create real change in our coal-addicted province.

The 10 Myths of Renewable Energy

Hi everyone.
As many of you know, I am involved with the Scotian WindFields. I normally try to keep this blog independent of my work with Scotian, but this was too important to leave out. See the following communication about the 10 Myths of Renewable Energy...

The Nova Scotia Department of Energy is currently re-evaluating its Energy Strategy in light of concerns about Climate Change and increasing energy costs. The Department is currently looking for public and stakeholder input on this issue, and has published a discussion paper to help this process. Despite their best intentions, the discussion paper is heavily favoured towards further development of fossil fuel based industry, rather than utilization of our world class renewable energy resources.

The Scotian WindFields are currently developing a formal response to the NS Department of Energy’s discussion paper on Energy Strategy. Scotian is hoping to re-focus the debate over energy from fossil-fuel based ideals to the basic principals of renewable energy. Through its response, Scotian hopes to get the energy debate going in the right direction by dispelling some of the common myths about Renewable Energy. (see below, in order that they appear in the discussion paper). The goal is to help Nova Scotia realize its potential to be environmentally sustainable and truly prosperous, through a future energy strategy focused on promotion of renewable energy.
The 10 Myths of Renewable Energy:
1. “Our economy and energy demand will require fossil fuels for some time” (page ii)
2. The current cost of wind and wave energy is higher than fossil fuels (page 2)
3. “To meet all of our energy demands, we still need fossil fuels” (Page 4)
4. There are technical obstacles to renewable energy (Page 6)
5. That there are “natural limits” to the amount of renewable energy available to use (Page 8)
6. “putting more wind power onto the grid may not lower emission levels” (Page 8)
7. “Energy cannot be efficiently stored” (Page 11)
8. Carbon sequestration may prove cost effective (Page 12)
9. Nova Scotia is “without large-scale local clean energy sources” (Page 13)
10. The opportunities to manufacture competitive renewable energy products in NS is limited (Page 18)

The Department of Energy is currently holding a number of public meetings around the province. If you feel that our government should be doing more to promote renewable energy and address climate change concerns, make sure to attend the meetings in your area:

Nov 29, 2007 Halifax 9:00 am World Trade Convention CentreSuite 101
Nov 29, 2007 Musquodoboit Harbour 4:00 pm Community Center (Rink) 67 Park Road
Dec 3, 2007 Amherst 4:00 pm Wandlyn Inn
Dec 4, 2007 Antigonish 4:00 pm Keating Millennium Centre Conference Room St. Francis Xaxier University
Dec 5, 2007 Truro 4:00 pm Truro Convention Center
Dec 6, 2007 Halifax 4:30 pm World Trade Convention Centre

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!

What "Sustainable Prosperity Act"?

How quickly Premier MacDonald has forgotten his own party's work from the Spring Session. Our government was one of the first in North America to pass legislation focusing on Sustainability, yet our Premier has put his faith in the oil and gas industry to lead this province into the future. MacDonald wrote a column in todays Chronicle Herald (link) proclaiming that our "future looks bright" because Deep Panuke might happen. If Encana decides to proceed with this large offshore project, (which I imagine they will), they will spend 3 years building the facilities, and 13 years pumping Natural Gas from the ocean floor. This may seem like a long time, but every turbine that is installed in the next two years in response to NS Power's RFP will last longer than this offshore project.

The PC Government seems hell bent in pushing the oil and gas industry for more exploration off our coasts, going as far as traveling to Houston and Dallas (home of such sustainability experts as Exxon and Halliburton) to beg them to come to Nova Scotia. Do we want a Premier that is in Texas promoting Oil and Gas, or perhaps one that goes to Denmark and Germany to see how they became world leaders in renewable energy. The Sustainable Prosperity Act pledges that Nova Scotia will become a "world leader in environmentally sustainable technologies" (Bill 146 3b). Did Premier MacDonald think the Texas Oil Patch was the place to start looking for these technologies?

Our government's bias towards Natural Gas has been clear for a while. Earlier in the summer, Premier MacDonald and Energy Minister Dooks pledged $3Million to help Heritage Gas pay for infrastructure costs. Heritage Gas is now giving the KeyNote address at the Green Energy 2007 conference sponsored by the Department of Energy. Natural Gas isn't green, and it isn't sustainable.

Both the Natural Gas industry and the Renewable Energy industry are starting to blossom in Nova Scotia. If a government wanted to be environmentally friendly, and sustainable as well, which industry should it support? Our government has put it's money on the table: 3Million for basic Natural Gas infrastructure, $75 thousand for the NS Wind Atlas.

Minister Dooks recently added in the Chronicle Herald (link) that the Department of Energy has to "protect electricity consumers". Natural Gas is well known to be more expensive than wind energy for electricity production. All year, NSPower has been burning $80/barrel oil at Tuffs Cove because it's still cheaper than Natural Gas. (CORRECTION: since earlier in 2007, Natural Gas has been used instead of Oil, which had been used for the past few years). The argument that renewables must be contained to protect consumers is completely false... it's only the existing fossil fuel interests that it protects.

Despite all this, the funny thing is that the renewable energy industry doesn't need all the handouts and bait money the oil and gas industry gets. All that the renewable energy industry needs is access to customers, something our PC government promised it would do in 2002. My recommendation is to let our poorly funded and under-performing schools have the money, and let renewable energies lead this province into the future.

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.

First Round of Renewable Energy Proposals

On a somewhat historic day, Friday was the deadline for submissions in response to NS Power's Request for Proposals (RFP) of 130MW of renewable energy. This RFP is the first step from NS Power to address the Renewable Standards Portfolio that the NS Government implemented, which states that NS Power must increase the proportion of energy it gets from renewable sources by 10%. At the time, NS Power got 8.3% of its electricity from renewable sources, 7.3% of this was from small hydro energy, and 1% was from wind energy. It is commonly reported that NS Power has to increase it's renewable sources to 20%, but it is in fact only 18.3%. Read the story from the front page of the Chronicle Herald business section here

Projects from all over the province were proposed, and to my knowledge these projects were almost exclusively based on wind energy. The main reason for this, is that although NS Power was told to increase the amount of renewable energy it used, they were told how they had to procure that electricity. Once their legislative requirements are met, NS Power is responsible for the best interests of its shareholders. In order to maximize the profitability of their newly acquired renewable energy, NS Power will be deciding the results from this RFP almost exclusively on a "lowest cost basis". The Ecology Action Centre issued a great press release on the downfalls of this tendering process which was picked up by the Chronicle Herald here. Wind energy is the most cost effective source of renewable electricity, therefore, it is the renewable source of choice under this system. One issue that isn't addressed in the EAC article is that if we are truly committed to moving towards a completely renewable electricity system, we will have to develop a diverse portfolio of renewable energies such as wind, solar, hydro, geothermal and sustainable biomass. What is most cost effective today doesn't relate to what is most sustainable for the future.

Despite these drawbacks, this is generally still a positive step for Nova Scotia. Currently, there is about 60MW of wind energy installed in Nova Scotia, and projects from this RFP will add over twice that. These new projects will be enough to power 40,000 homes. NS Power has publicly committed to announcing the successful projects by October 1st.

I imagine that NS Power will try to use these new projects to promote themselves as being "green" or environmentally friendly. Their public image could certainly use some work. In a recent national survey, NS Power ranked second last in the country. Read all about it here. Despite all of these new projects, the new electricity will only be used to match the increase in electricity in this province, which is approximately 3%/year. NS Power's four coal burning thermal plants will continue to operate uninhibited, emitting enough Greenhouse Gases to make NS Power the 6th largest polluter in Canada.

Stay tuned to NS Power's promotional efforts surrounding these projects, as I'm sure it will be entertaining. October promises to be an exciting month.

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.

10 Times Cheaper and Tall Ships Kiosk

Hi everyone,
Firstly, a great report released last week from Greenpeace and European Renewable Energy Council. This report constitutes the first global analysis of the differences between a "business as usual" electricity system, and one based on renewables. This report also finds that this renewable energy infrastructure will cost an annual global investment of $22Billion, but it will actually save $202Billion, for a total savings of $180Billion. Therefore a renewable energy electricity system will be 10times cheaper than a fossil fuel based one (including Nuclear) These numbers are very large, and may be hard to visualize, but remember this when established fossil-fuel-based utilities talk about the "costs" of renewable energy. The savings will be far greater for the general public. Here is the story: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0707/S00090.htm

Also, if you happen to be in my fair hometown of Halifax this weekend. Make sure you take in the Tall Ships festival. While you are down there, make sure you visit the Scotian WindFields kiosk between the Electropolis sound stage and Bishops landing. The booth will be up Friday morning, until Monday afternoon, between 10am and 6pm. If you are looking for a familier face, I'll be at the booth most of Saturday and Sunday.