CHP: Low-hanging fruit that’s not being picked
My Clean Break feature today looks at the potential of combined heat and power (CHP) projects in Ontario, and explores why we’re not seeing more of it in the province — particularly those projects that can recycle industrial heat and flu gases. Several ambitious projects have been shelved because the developers behind them simply couldn’t make the economics work. The economic downturn — i.e. the credit squeeze — is playing a role, but many industry observers are also pointing fingers at the government (and the power authority) for setting the bar too high and making the rules too complex.
Their argument: government needs to do a better job of encouraging and supporting CHP projects.
Their reason: The projects not only make struggling industries more competitive, they will create jobs when we need them most and will produce cleaner electricity for the province’s grid.
Sounds reasonable. With all the talk about the need for economic stimulus, these are projects that should be pursued — not just because of their short-term job creation benefits, but because they will make Ontario’s manufacturing leaders more competitive in the long run and help clean up the province’s electricity mix.
We continue to dump money into clean coal and carbon capture/sequestration, but where are the loan guarantees for low-hanging fruit like CHP — projects that will actually make a real difference today?
This is one area where Ontario can — and should — step up.
Tyler Hamilton is editor-in-chief of Corporate Knights magazine and a business columnist for the Toronto Star, Canada's largest daily newspaper. In addition to this Clean Break blog, Tyler writes a weekly column of the same name that discusses trends, happenings and innovators in the clean technology and green energy market. This blog is a personal project started in April 2005. It is not an official blog of the newspaper.
February 2nd, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Ontario (and the rest of Canada) won’t step up until those who currently have the power are replaced with new fresh thinking individuals. The industry is structured by way of seniority based hierarchies. Those at the top come from a long line of “business as usual” type thinking. They will not change. When the boomers start retiring in mass numbers that’s when we’ll start seeing big changes.
February 2nd, 2009 at 7:41 pm
I’m associated with Recycled Energy Development, whose chair, Tom Casten, is one of the guys being quoted a lot in that article. (I’m pretty sure they used our numbers as well.) We’re based south of the border, but the issue for both countries remains fundamentally the same: until we do a lot more on CHP — which uses energy that would otherwise be wasted — we won’t see our respective countries improve their energy efficiency. In the U.S., our average efficiency has remained more or less stagnant since the 1950s. Given that the technology to fix this problem has been around since Edison’s first power plant in 1882, that’s really a scandal.
February 2nd, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Ah, just realized you’re the same guy who reported that story. So by “they,” of course, I mean “you.” (Grin.)
February 3rd, 2009 at 7:09 am
The best solutions, or at least the ones we need to concentrate on first are all being left behind because they are not sexy enough.
Energy efficiency is difficult, it takes hard work and a change in mentality, but it is the single biggest opportunity and the cheapest to boot.
Whilst RED obviously have a vested interest, they are right that CHP has a huge potential impact
February 4th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
This is an excellent point, CHP offers great efficiencies that improve the economics. But they aren’t being built with the regularity one would expect.
I work with Nexterra Energy a biomass and we see lots of people trying to do stand alone biomass power plants that we know will never fly. We’re working on connecting our biomass gasifier with an engine to allow customers to produce renewable heat and power at a smaller scale (<10 MW). Perhaps with the renewable energy credits the economics and efficiencies will allow for more projects to be built.
February 11th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
As I understand CHP systems they use internal combustion engines that usually burn fossil fuels. Recovering the heat is one thing, but if you are still generating pollution along with the electricity, it shouldn’t be used unless you use a fuel that is renewable and non-polluting. Did I miss something or are we talking about a different animal?