Canada's Kyoto Withdrawal May Trigger EU Tariffs

A majority of Canadians are disgusted today by the fact that our government has pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol.  Canada was one of the first countries to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol, and now as the distinction of being the first to formally back away from its commitments. 

There is much outrage and finger pointing between our political parties about whose fault it is that we have come to this point.  Frankly, I think all political parties bare some of the blame, but most importantly so does every Canadian, regardless for whom you voted. 

While it was briefly mentioned on CBC’s The National tonight, there has been very little coverage about what this could mean for Canada economically, especially regarding international trade.  There is a very real chance that tariffs could be applied Canadian products in the near future because we are no longer part of a climate pact or emissions trading scheme.

I remember first thinking that Canada might be threatened with tariffs because of our lack of climate policy when President Obama was elected.  It seemed that the US was going to adopt hard emissions targets and, through the workings of NAFTA, Canada would therefore be forced to follow suit.

More recently, we can see who is a far more likely candidate to impose the first carbon tariff on Canadian products: The European Union.  In fact, the EU is already considering applying a tariff on Canadian produced fuels because of its higher carbon content. ( Canada Fights Fuel Standards - Gazette ).  The Canadian and Albertan governments are desperately fighting this dangerous precedent, but I would imagine that Europe of all places right now is not likely to do Canada any favours. 

While Canada has done very little over the 15 years since it first signed on to Kyoto, countries and businesses in the EU have been working hard to reduce their emissions continuously.  With budget cuts and austerity measures becoming the standard in European financial policy, it is only a matter of time before Europeans demand that countries not sharing the burden to reduce global emissions be penalized before entering their economy. 

This means that even though Canada is avoiding $Billions in fines for non-compliance in Kyoto by withdrawing, we could be facing a much steeper economic hurdle from international tariffs.  The now 190 Kyoto Countries will not stand by and give unfettered access to their economies to countries and companies that are not accounting for their carbon emissions. 

There are far more important reasons for Canada not to pull out of Kyoto, however it may be the repercussions for international trade that will first show how irresponsibly Canada is acting regarding climate change. 

Solar Quiz: In which month do solar hot water systems harness the most energy?

As we reach the end of August and finally have some nice weather to enjoy in Nova Scotia, it is easy to assume this time of year has the most solar energy potential.   Sunny days are more frequent and the days are still longer than average. 

However, the answer isn’t as obvious as you may think!

While PV energy generation potential is directly proportionate to solar radiation, solar thermal energy potential also depends on the starting temperature of the cold water it is heating.  Colder starting temperatures allow for more energy to be transferred as well as the efficiency of that transfer to be more efficient (due to higher deltaT).

So far in 2011, many of the solar hot water systems installed by the team at Doctor Solar have harnessed most energy in the month of March.

Parker St in Dartmouth, NS  Parker St. Annual Savings Graph

The Royalton in Bedford NS  Royalton Annual Savings Graph

While there are many variables that could contribute to this variance, the most likely cause is the temperature the cold water supply.  The amount energy harnessed is calculated by the difference between temperature of solar pre-heated water and the original temperature of the cold water supply (the status quo).  In March the cold water supply averages close to 5C, while in August it averages 21C.  

Everything Old Is New Again

It seems that everything old is new again...

I started this blog back in 2007 shortly after Scotian WindFIelds Inc (SWFI) was formed. After existing on its own for a while on Blogspot, Renewable Times moved over to the SWFI website where it was updated (occasionally) for the last few years.

This week will see the launch of a new SWFI website. The folks that know a lot more about this stuff than I tell me that I should move back to the stand alone Blogspot page, so here we are.

Those of you who were on the original mailing list will start getting emails again, because it seems the feed distribution is still intact, and you all likely received an email from an old post earlier in August.

I’ve imported a few old blog posts that still seem relevant, so they won’t be lost in the website change over.

Things are certainly interesting these days in the renewable energy industry in Nova Scotia. Renewable energy is at the cusp of becoming mainstream in many ways. It is now a significant contributor to our electricity grid (~20%), there are important policies being developed at municipal and provincial levels, and residents, businesses and institutions are all starting to look to renewable energy to lower their operating costs.

That all means that there is plenty to blog about…. I’m already working on a few posts, but in the meantime, as of early this week, make sure to check out the new SWFI website at www.scotianwindfields.ca

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.

Why Scotian WindFields doesn't do micro-wind

Scotian WindFields Inc started as a wind farm developer. Since that time we have expanded in to individual utility scale turbines, on site commercial turbines along with expanding into solar energy. We get asked all the time about micro wind turbines, roof mounted, vertical axis, and other tiny turbines, and this weekend’s Atlantic Eco Expo was no different.

But Scotian WindFields doesn’t install micro turbines. The smallest turbine we install is

the 5kW Endurance wind turbine. The reason for this is simple: as turbines get smaller, they get less effective.

Earlier this week one of my favorite website, The Oil Drum, published a great piece about two different studies of micro wind turbines.

I’ll let the article make the rest of the argument: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6954

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.