Issue 9 March
2007
( Download
PDF - 860kB)
A Publication of Sustainable
Solutions for all of BC’s Energy Needs
The Post Fossil Future
by Hermann Scheer
Hermann Scheer is a Member of the German Bundestag for the SPD, President of EUROSOLAR, the European Association for Renewable Energ,y and Chairman of the World Council for Renewable Energy. In 1999 he was awarded the Alternative Nobel Prize for his writing and initiatives, and in 2002 Time Magazine named him as one of five "Heroes for the Green Century". He is probably the leading figure in the world on sustainable energy, and is author of the new book Energy Autonomy: The economic, social and technological case for renewable energy (Earthscan 2007), which we will review in a future issue. We are honoured that he gave us permission to reproduce this article.
Renewable energies are a realistic and affordable alternative
There is both bad news and good news for world energy supply. The bad news? Oil is running out. The good news? Oil is running out. And not only oil: sooner or later, every type of fossil energy will run out – including fossil uranium ore which is needed to make atomic fuel rods.
It was always clear that oil would run out one day. But because people didn't know when, they put the problem to the back of their minds. The alarmist mood among state leaders today shows that they were living from day to day, whilst their countries' dependence on the resources which were becoming depleted grew greater and greater. Yet the question as to how long the reserves will last is only the third most important question.
The most important question arises from the following fact: the maximum ecological burden which world civilization can cope with will be reached before the limit of availability of finite resources. According to the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, climate gases will have to be reduced by at least 60 per cent by 2050 if ecosphere collapse is to be avoided.
 The second most important question is: what does the development of energy prices mean for the global economy and the individual national economies? The unbroken increase in energy prices is rooted in several factors. Firstly, the era of "easy oil" is definitively over, leading to an increasing tendency to resort to non-conventional fossil fuels.
Secondly, due to the development of China, for example, and the increase in world travel, world energy demand is increasing more rapidly than new technology can increase supply. Thirdly, the necessary infrastructure is becoming increasingly costly.
Political uncertainties constitute a fourth factor. In a world which is growing more and more unstable in cultural, economic and social terms, these uncertainties are likely to grow further. This means that the vulnerability of the outdated energy system to disruption is increasing, which means an increase in the political and military costs of energy security.
Thus, world energy supply is already in a precarious and desolate state today, far in advance of the actual depletion of resources. Initiatives are planned for the next G8 summit in St Petersburg aimed at finding a way out of the energy trap, though these plans are illusory. The worldwide renaissance of nuclear energy and the promotion of "clean coal" power plants are based on the assumption that the world energy system would be intact if only it were not for the carbon-dioxide/climate problem. For this reason, calls are made for increased production quotas and expanded international transport networks, even though this is in conflict with climate-protection goals. Renewable energies are also to be promoted, but they play only a marginal role in the initiatives.
A general shift in the energy basis – a shift to renewable energies - ought to have been given absolute strategic priority long ago. To avoid this conclusion, untenable excuses and apologies have been given.
It is claimed, for example, that the potential of renewable energies is not sufficient to replace nuclear and fossil energies and that it is too expensive to introduce such energies on a large scale.
In addition, there are assertions that the whole thing would take too long, meaning that the focus must remain on conventional power plants for the decades to come. And, finally, it is claimed that the problem of storing renewable energies has not been solved.
Nothing can be activated more quickly than renewable energies
On closer examination, none of these arguments are convincing. The sun, with its by-products (wind, water, biomass, waves) supplies our planet with 15,000 times more energy per day than we consume. No form of energy supply can be activated more quickly than the de-centralized facilities needed to exploit renewable energy. Both storage technology - such as pumped storage plants and compressed air power plants - and hybrid structures to enhance efficiency - such as hydropower or bioenergy hook-ups for sun and wind energy plants - are well developed.
The only direct costs of renewable energy production are those of making available the technology needed. At the same time, the external costs of renewable energies are minimal.
Indeed, renewables offer significant economic and political advantages over fossil fuels. Fossil imports would be replaced by permanently available home-grown energy. Energy security would be enhanced. Leeway for regional economic structures in the areas of trade and agriculture would be increased. Infrastructure requirements would be considerably diminished. And, of course, serious environmental and health damage would be avoided.
If the speed of introduction of renewable energies remains constant, electricity production from nuclear power and fossil energies will have been wholly substituted by renewable energies in around forty years time. Direct additional costs compared with conventional energy will drop, as the costs for conventional energy rise. This means that, even before 2020, the costs of renewable energies should be lower than those for electricity generated in new nuclear and fossil power plants. This will further accelerate the energy shift.
This opportunity for a post-fossil and post-nuclear future is not perceived as such, indeed the existence of this opportunity is still denied. This can be explained by a blinkered view of energy.
Isolated cost comparisons are carried out, instead of energy systems as a whole being compared. The outdated energy system, with its company structure, is seen as set in stone. Yet these are unrealistic views, revealing a complete lack of basic knowledge of the technology concerned and the sociology of energy.
Each energy system is bound to be geared to those particular sources of energy that it uses. The choice of energy source determines the political, economic and technological effort required for extraction, processing, transport and distribution, including the transformation technology needed.
This means that the switch to renewable energies and thus to wholly different energy flows would change everything. It would mean a switch from commercial to non-commercial primary energies, from a small number of large power stations and refineries to a large number of medium and small-scale power plants, from internationalised to regionalised infrastructure, from energies which produce emissions to emission-free energy.
And, not least, from highly concentrated company and ownership structures to more diverse ones. The systemic shift in energy supply represents a paradigm shift in technological, economic and political terms.
It is here that lies the political crux of the energy problem. Recognising this allows us to understand why certain groups are resisting renewable energies. And how this resistance can be overcome.
This article is a condensed version of an article originally printed in Le Monde diplomatique in June of 2006.
Energy Efficiency in California and British Columbia
by Geza Vamos
The Electric Power Research Institute estimates that 44 percent of North America’s electricity consumption could be saved through proven measures within 10 years, while the Rocky Mountain Institute estimates the potential savings to be 75 percent within 20 years.
 Stabilizing our climate will require dramatic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in the coming decades, and decreasing electricity use is a powerful way to reduce such emissions. This is particularly true in British Columbia, where we trade a large portion of our hydroelectricity for coal- and gas-generated electricity.
Action can’t come too soon, and due to 150 years of neglect in implementing energy-saving technologies, saving electricity is far cheaper than generating it from new sources. This stagnation is largely due to a lack of effective economic incentives.
In the period since 1975, per capita electricity consumption in BC and throughout most of North America has doubled. Over this same period, per capita consumption in California has remained constant. Three critical components have contributed to California’s success in this area.
First, California utilities are required to invest at least as much per unit of electricity in helping customers save energy, as in generating electricity. The state has decoupled public and private utilities’ profits from the amount of electricity they sell, providing strong motivation to exceed energy-saving guidelines. One utility - Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) - runs award-winning rebate programs, which have resulted in customer energy savings that almost fully cancel growth in demand. See "rebates" at www.pge.com for an overview of this program, and compare with the scarce rebates offered by BC Hydro at www.bchydro.com.
Second, the California government sets tough minimum energy efficiency standards for new buildings and renovations, which are revised on a regular basis. For example, California’s Title 24 energy code mandates builders to install energy efficient light sources. Incandescent lamps are restricted to certain rooms and must be controlled by motion detectors and light sensors. The BC Government failed to deliver on its promise to upgrade the BC building code, caving to pressure from developers.
Third, California sets strict minimum energy efficiency standards for most appliances and electrical equipment, and revises these standards every three years. The BC Government again caved to industry resistance to higher energy efficiency standards.
The growth in demand for BC Hydro’s and PG&E’s electricity is similar, at about 1.5 percent per year. However, PG&E, with a similar customer base to BC Hydro, invests around $280 million per year in energy efficiency programs, nearly offsetting this increase in demand. In contrast, BC Hydro's twenty year plan entails an average annual investment of only $25 million in developing energy savings.
Over the same period, some $500 million per year will be invested in developing its supply, including the construction of coal plants and hydroelectric dams. Such projects carry huge financial, social, and environmental costs.
BC Hydro and the BC Ministry of Energy have not responded effectively to research showing that individuals and businesses do not invest in energy efficiency based on information alone, but rather require attractive economic benefits. When such benefits are in place, participation rates in energy efficiency programs of up to 90 percent have been achieved in such locations as Hood River, Oregon, and Espanola, Ontario.
Jurisdictions like California and England fund free energy upgrades for millions of low-income homes to simultaneously tackle climate change and poverty. Sadly, BC’s poverty advocates vigorously oppose energy saving programs, as they fear the province’s poorly-designed programs will result in higher energy costs for low income families who can’t afford energy upgrades, while benefiting wealthy customers who could afford the energy upgrades with or without BC Hydro rebates.
Urge Premier Campbell to match Californian climate change actions. The throne speech promise of standards for new cars is laudable, but if BC is to get anywhere near meeting its new greenhouse gas reduction goal it must enact energy efficiency standards for all energy end uses, including buildings and appliances, and change utility rules so that they invest as much in saving energy as in developing new supplies.
Email the premier at: gordon.campbell.mla@leg.bc.ca and his Cabinet Secretary Jessica McDonald c/o angela.koutougos@gov.bc.ca.
Gabriola Takes Action:
The Gabriola Climate Action Network
by Deb Scott
It was a brisk day in September when two long time friends created the Gabriola Chapter of the Climate Action Network (Gabe CAN). Sheila Haniszewska and Kate Reynolds realized that what our rural community needed was a positive action group that could create a basis for educating our island residents.
Considering both women are teachers, it was a natural process for them. They are also both passionate environmental activists and were glad to take on a leadership role.
They began with a petition letter drive to the Prime Minister, setting up a table at the village mall. It was October when I stumbled upon this table, and learned about their new project. I immediately signed the letter to the Prime Minister.
I was thoroughly impressed with the letter and the passion Sheila exuded. I told them I would be pleased to attend the upcoming meeting at the end of October and so it began. Since then, we (a group of about 10 members and counting) have had three meetings, two letter-signing drives and a discussion that led up to a big-ticket movie event.
The group enthusiastically hosted a free showing of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. We were lucky enough to have two of the biggest island event organizers on our side. Paul and Tsiporah Grignon gladly helped out with promotion and the technical side of the affair by donating their time and by using their big screen and projector. They agreed that the residents of Gabriola Island needed to see this film.
The movie showing on Saturday January 27th was a success! We had about 55 people show up at the Gabriola Commons, which for this island is a big group. The feeling in the air after the film was one of seriousness and worry. I saw a few faces looking downright shocked but I hoped the subsequent discussion would move the feelings of concern into something more pro-active. We did not want people to leave feeling less than hopeful or overwhelmed!
We already have a society with a "why bother" and the group hopes to challenge that. One of the main issues Gabe CAN wants to tackle is raising public awareness and educating individuals amidst all the supposed controversy in the mainstream media.
The movie was followed by coffee and tea that was promptly taken outdoors for the members who wanted to enjoy the last few hours of this beautiful day. Sheila Haniszewska led a discussion with a few worthy props in hand. She started by encouraging people to read Guy Dauncey’s book Stormy Weather as it is an informative text that can help educate people about environmental issues and offer some solutions. We also had on hand the weekend edition of The Globe and Mail with its dire reports on the climate crisis. It’s interesting that the news seems filled with stories and in-depth articles about global warming, since it has become a political issue alongside the social and moral concerns.
The discussion was very positive and promising. It started with Sheila as facilitator but moved into a polite open circle discussion that had people brainstorming and promoting various ideas. We heard from the group about carpooling, public transit, bio-diesel fuels electric cars, mopeds and bikes. Gabe CAN wants to promote a no drive day in the future to cut emissions, borrowing one of Satish Kumar’s (editor of the environmental magazine, Resurgence) ideas. Another possibility for the group is to invite guest speakers on some of the eco-friendly concepts to educate the community.
Tsiporah Grignon also strongly lobbied for people to use peace activism to encourage environmentally sound policies. She let the group know how detrimental the war effort is to the world’s environmental health, as armies do not include environmental issues as primary parts of their agenda. Costly fuel, energy and weapons contribute large quantities of pollution and other unsound practices to an already taxed planet. Some island residents noted that many of these ideas are not viable across the board for everyone. But, if enough small solutions start being used by committed individuals, this will add up to some level of positive change.
We as a group encouraged people to participate in the February 1st worldwide rally to turn the electricity off for the five-minute interval. The group managed to double in size after this event and we garnered a lot of much needed attention. I think we can count on seeing more individuals at February’s meeting. We hope to receive regular local media coverage to gain momentum for future group projects. The stir we created in the community so far is very exciting!
As for myself, I hope that we increase awareness of what changes are achievable. All of us could improve our standards and take more personal responsibility towards a green future. I know that many just need to find healthier routines and make more environmentally positive goals. I believe more parents will start to participate in these endeavours because they have an obvious goal in mind, the health and welfare of their children.
With the newspapers trumpeting dire circumstances everywhere, many communities like Gabriola Island will strive to be positive role models for other rural locations. Sheila and Kate did well to be the driving force behind this much-needed vehicle (forgive the pun). With their commitment and enthusiasm they have enlisted other like-minded and concerned citizens with ambitions to combat the environmental crisis.
Gabriola Climate Action Network Founders Sheila Haniszewska and Kate Reynolds
A Ground Source Heat Pump For Ken's New Home
by Gunther Honold
 In 2003, my friend Ken realized his aspiration to begin living a more environmentally sustainable lifestyle, far from the energy-intensive way of life led by most modern urban dwellers. Ken had been, like many of us, exposed over time to the reality of increasing uncertainty in global oil supplies, looming signs of climate change, and the fact that much of our modern way of life is not sustainable. Ken did not join an organization concerned with such issues, though he clearly got the message.
Ken and his family left their home in Victoria, B.C., and had the good fortune to obtain a small farm property near Nelson, B.C. Ken invested his funds in building an energy-efficient house. He aimed to build this house while taking advantage of all of the incentives, credits, and rebates available from all sectors of government and industry.
The most challenging decision he faced in the design of his energy-efficient home was the installation of a ground source heat pump system for space and water heating. Two years down the road, not only is Ken pleased with the "very good payback" of this system, but also with the great step towards environmental sustainability this personal investment represents. He has also found that the heat pump system has met his families needs, despite two cold winters, and without the need of a supplemental heating unit.
One interesting part of this story is that Ken was never one to go to lectures, courses, or meetings on environmental sustainability, but he managed to get the message over time, and moved ahead without hesitation. As he puts it himself, he was driven by his "personal passion." While regulation and incentives are very important motivational tools, every individual has the ultimate say in what action they are going to take.
A closed-loop ground source heat pump
MilliJoules
by Guy Dauncey
Ontario’s Solar Farms
 With the new Standard Offer Contract in place in Ontario, what’s it doing for the solar industry? The Ontario Power Authority assumed "a near-term potential of 50 MW, rising to 100 MW by 2025." In just one joint-venture, however, the SkyPower Corporation of Toronto and SunEdison of Baltimore are planning to install 50 MW of solar farms across Ontario, on several hundred acres of farmland that they say is no longer economically viable. This is 100 times larger than Canada’s current largest solar project (100 kW), and almost equal to the entire solar capacity that been installed in Canada over the last 20 years. So what is our potential? Germany is currently installing 700-800 MW a year, using their Advanced Renewable Tariff to stimulate investment. Canada has more solar radiation than Germany, and 26 times more land area. So let me see….
(Image: Solar farm in Germany)
Vancouver Island’s Malahat Solutions
The Malahat is a winding road that runs over the mountain between Victoria and Mill Bay, offering a stunning view of the Saanich Inlet. It is an essential commuter corridor, but it can be difficult when too many vehicles accumulate. So BC’s Ministry of Transport is considering its options, costing from $250 million to over $1 billion for road-widening or bridges across the Saanich Inlet (see www.th.gov.bc.ca/malahat/study_area.htm). MilliJoules has a simpler solution. Place a $2 road toll on the Malahat in one direction only, and gather $60,000 a day from the 30,000 vehicles that use the road. Apply the toll as a subsidy for a fast, comfortable coach service. A typical bus costs $100 an hour to operate, and the return trip from Mill Bay to Victoria takes two hours, so $60,000 would allow 300 buses to carry 12,000 commuters (40 per bus, with tables and leg-room), reducing the volume of vehicles on the Malahat by 50%. If they pay $5 for the return trip, there’s $60,000 a day (call it $18 million a year) available for the necessary park-and ride stations, shuttles, pick-up buses, orange juice, free newspapers, and hi-speed Internet connections. We’ve also got to factor in buying the coaches. Anyone good with a calculator?
Everywhere’s Computer Solutions
So why does it matter if you leave your computer on at night? It can’t do any harm, can it? In Britain, a recent PC Energy Report revealed that 20% of office workers leave their computers on at least 3 times a week, wasting over CAN $200 million of electricity and releasing 200,000 tonnes of carbon a year. Only 30% of workers activate their power-save settings; 1.7 million PCs are left on permanently, and a further 1.3 million are left on occasionally. One solution could be to install a power-off switch for an entire building, except for emergency lighting and computers that are participating in 24-hour programs such as SETI or www.climateprediction.net. It’s tough, but people would soon learn! And think of the savings, since all the lights and phantom loads would go off, too.
EEStor’s Stunning New Batteries
 Is it a bird that will fly? That’s the question mark around the EEStor claim to have developed a stunning new EV battery technology that will deliver 500 miles for $9 worth of power (50 cents a day for an electric vehicle driving 10,000 miles a year). EEStor says the battery will cost 50% less per kilowatt-hour, weigh 90% less than a lead-acid battery, and can be fully charged in less than 5 minutes, which is doubtless what persuaded the venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers (KPCB) to buy $3 million in preferred stock. And who are KPCB? They have previously made major investments in Google, Amazon.com, and Netscape, so they have a good track record. The ZENN Motor Company of Toronto has confirmed plans to use EEStor batteries in its EV Feel Good Cars by 2008 (www.zenncars.com). If this pans out, it may spell the end of the internal combustion engine. For details, google EEStor – but be warned – the company is being super-secretive!
(Image: The ZENN EV in Paris, where it won the Michelin Challenge Bibendum gold medal in the Urban Vehicle category.)
EVENTS
Please visit our Events page!
Join
the BCSEA
Please visit our section on Getting
Involved!
= Top =
|
