Okay, as far as the concept of carbon capture and storage goes,  the idea — technologically — is intriguing. What many readers of this blog don’t like is how the industry talks about this technology like it’s here today so, hell, let’s drill for even more oil and burn more coal. We’re a decade away from seeing even just a small number of large-scale CCS projects in operation, so talk today of coal plants or oil-sand operations being “CCS-ready” is nothing more than greenwashing. I would imagine most people don’t mind the Canadian government supporting R&D into CCS, but what they perhaps don’t like is that the investment is being made to the exclusion of everything else. Why, it’s reasonable to ask, take a silver-bullet approach to a technology that’s a decade away? Would it not be better to balance it with near-term measures and investment in technologies that are here today?

But let’s assume, a decade out, that all the promise of CCS pans out. Let’s assume it takes hold, that a vast network of pipelines is built, that we’re certain sequestration sites won’t leak, and that the percentage of CO2 we can capture from coal plants and industrial sites continues to improve. Let’s assume that two decades out we start to see a number of acquifers and old oil fields filled to capacity with CO2 and, finally, capped shut.

Think those storage sites will be forever permanent? Think again. (more…)

So, a Washington-based lobby group called the Center for Liquefied Natural Gas has come out with a study that analyses the lifecycle emissions of LNG versus coal. The aim of the study is to make sure U.S. legislators “know the truth” about clean-burning LNG as they consider climate-change legislation. Their conclusion — surprise, surprise – is that LNG for power generation contributes, on an apples-to-apples basis, about 70 per cent less greenhouse-gas emissions compared to even the cleanest coal technologies. Put another way, they say that an existing coal power plant in the United States produces two and a half times more greenhouse gas emissions than a comparable LNG power plant.

That sounds, well…. completely unbelievable. (more…)

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty says he’s not prepared to tolerate NIMBYism regarding renewable-energy projects when community concerns go beyond health, safety and environmental concerns. In other words, those who oppose wind turbines, biomass facilities and solar farms “just because” — i.e. because they don’t like the look of them, because they think wind energy is uneconomical, because they think climate change is a crock, because they believe it will affect property values – won’t be permitted to derail projects by manipulating local and provincial regulations.

McGuinty said the province’s new Green Energy Act to be tabled later this month will aim to streamline/clarify/override local bylaws and regulations that can be used by certain groups to delay or stop proposed renewable-energy projects.

It’s a laudable goal. (more…)

Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm has put a temporary halt on coal plant development, wants to more seriously explore the use of alternative energy and conservation in the state, and more recently has indicated a strong interest in developing offshore wind farms in Lake Michigan. An advanced feed-in tariff for renewables is also on the table.

The motivation? Green jobs, green jobs, green jobs.

Last Friday, Granholm signed an executive order that created a Great Lakes Wind Council, essentially a 13-person panel of advisors who will “identify criteria that can be used to review applications for offshore wind development.”

The goal is to rule out locations where offshore wind farms wouldn’t make sense, and highlight areas that are favourable for development. The council will also develop rules to streamline the approvals process. Their full report to the governor is expected Sept. 1, 2009.

It should be pointed out that Ohio and Wisconsin are also moving swiftly to capture this opportunity. Ontario’s window of opportunity — its chance to establish a leadership position in lake-based offshore wind — is closing.

We’ll find out later this month, when the Ontario government tables its Green Energy Act, whether support for offshore wind is built into it.

It’s been a long-time coming, but finally the electricity sector in Ontario has taken a close look at what a smart grid might look like and what it will take to get us there. The Ontario Smart Grid Forum, made up of electricity sector executives and officials, released a white paper this week that, among other things, recommended that the province spend $320 million annually for the next five years on smart grid technology deployment — and that’s above and beyond existing budget allocations for grid maintenance, expansion and smart meter deployment. (See my Toronto Star article here).

It would be a decent chunk of change, at least measured against the pittance the federal government has allocated for the entire country — that is, some unknown portion of a $1 billion “green” fund spread over five years. In the United States, a stimulus bill under discussion would devote $11 billion (U.S.)  over two years. (more…)