My column today was a snapshot of some energy management projects going on in Ontario, a sign that local utilities are getting energized about the possibilities of energy conservation, given the right technologies in the hands of homeowners and businesses.

I mentioned Milton Hydro’s 200-plus household project in Ontario, but I’d like to provide some context because the results only tell half the story. Here’s what I wrote in the column:

The pilot project, conducted between July 2007 and Sept. 2008, was a collaboration between Milton Hydro, Direct Energy and Bell Canada. Households were given the ability to monitor their energy use through the Internet, as well as through BlackBerry-like devices, and to remotely control the lighting and operation of appliances in their homes.

An easy-to-use Web interface, designed by Toronto-based Lixar SRS, gave them a detailed view of how much electricity individual appliances were using at any point in time. The results showed that one in 10 participating households, when handed this control, used 16 per cent less electricity over 12 months and 18 per cent less during peak periods.

I say only half the story because the Milton project was a bit of a mish-mash of different technologies, some of which worked and some that didn’t work so well. The fact that only 10 per cent achieved savings above 15 per cent per cent is a bit misleading because, as I understand it, different homes were tested with different technologies and protocols. The only common thread was the Lixar SRS energy management software, which Direct Energy hailed as the best part of the project. I’d like to emphasize this because Toronto-based Lixar is another Ontario cleantech company making waves beyond provincial borders. “The most impressive was the Lixar interface,” said David Dollihite, vice-president of product development at Direct Energy. “Lixar has got a leading edge customer user interface for the presentment of energy usage information, and the ability to turn that information into something that’s actionable.”

An example? Some participants in the project were given the capability of participating in provincial demand-response programs. During DR periods, participants saw savings of 44 per cent. Pretty damn good. I’ve taken the Lixar software for a spin, and have to say it lives up to expectations and is super user-friendly. (more…)

Well, just three months after being tabled Ontario’s Liberal government has succeeded in getting its Green Energy and Economy Act passed into law. The bill passed by a vote of 59 in favour and 13 against, and will be effective immediately after it gets Royal Assent (a rubber stamp).

This, with no exaggeration, is an historic event in North America. The new law creates a framework for giving renewable energy and conservation priority access and consideration in the design and expansion of Ontario’s electricity system. It will speed up development by streamlining regulations and approvals and will draw more players, such as municipalities, local utilities, community co-ops, and native groups, into clean-energy projects. Programs to flow from the Green Energy Act, such as a new European-style advanced feed-in tariff aimed at stimulating renewable-energy projects, will make Ontario a major attraction for investors and will set an example for other provinces and states to follow.

“The Green Energy Act will truly set us on the path to a 21st century green economy for Ontario, one that is sustainable, easy on the environment, and focused on the jobs of the future,” said Energy and Infrastructure Minister George Smitherman.

The act has received much praise domestically and abroad. Robert Pollin, co-director of the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts, called the legislation “excellent.” Similar kudos have come from British economist Sir Nicholas Stern and German legislator Hermann Scheer.

Stefan Gsanger, secretary general of the World Wind Energy Association, said the law represents “an historic international milestone as the act promises to be the most advanced piece of renewable energy legislation in North America.”

It’s not perfect. It has its critics. A lot is left to be proven. But at least the path has been laid and the work can get started. Time to roll up the sleeves, Ontario.

(Note: Thanks to the University of Guelph student newspaper for the above image)

The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy issued a report yesterday touting the role that semiconductor-based technologies have played in making the U.S. economy more efficient. At the same time, the International Energy Agency issued its own report calling on governments around the world to be more aggressive with efficiency standards for ICT and consumer electronics, which are expected to demand twice as much power by 2022 and three times as much by 2030 — creating a need for another 280 gigawatts of power generation (i.e. like adding another Japan to the world, or more than 230 nuclear reactors). “This will jeopardize efforts to increase energy security and reduce the emission of greenhouse gases,” according to an IEA news brief.

I’ve got a story on it here in the Toronto Star.

It appears the American efficiency council was aware that the IEA report was coming and intent on countering its conclusions, or at least defending the role that semiconductor-based technologies have played in improving efficiency throughout the larger economy. The council claims that such technologies have *avoided* the need for 184 power plants since 1976 and, using 2006 as a reference point, saved consumers and businesses $69-billion on their electricity bills. More than that, the technologies have prevented 479 million megatons of CO2-equivalent emissions — that is, they’re responsible for a “20 per cent cut in electric utility industry emissions linked to climate change.” Going forward, it estimates a further $1.3 trillion (yes, trillion) in savings between now and 2030. “Despite the immediate growth in electricity demands to power the growing number of devices and technologies, semiconductors have enabled a surprisingly larger energy productivity benefit in that same period,” argues John Laitner, the council’s director of economic and social analysis.

So who’s right? Well, both.

Certainly computers and networking gear have contributed substantially to economic efficiency, but can the same argument be said for iPods and cellphones with digital cameras and other unnecessary features built into them? Do we really need four televisions, three computers, two DVD players and digital picture frames that use remote controls in every home? Fact is many of the consumer electronics, if not most, contribute nothing to productivity but exist merely to entertain and make life more convenient, and in most cases slightly so. This is what the IEA is talking about, and while it implicitly recognizes such a market is important and not going away, it makes a good argument: If we’re going to become more gadget-obsessed we have an obligation to make these devices as energy-efficient as possible.

Thoughts?

It kills me to see GE announce plans to invest $100 million in a new manufacturing facility in New York that will build sodium-nickel-chloride (or molten salt)batteries, an energy-dense storage chemistry that will be targeted at new hybrid-electric trains, tugboat electrification, and utility-scale storage for renewables and peak shaving. Some call them Zebra batteries, which is the brand name for sodium-nickel-chloride batteries made by Swiss-based MES-DEA.

Don’t get me wrong — I’m glad GE is making this investment. It’s just that it was a decision being contemplated three years ago by a group of Canadian companies that simply couldn’t round up the funding to make it work. Perhaps they were just a bit ahead of their time.

Here’s what I wrote in July 2006 about a small Ontario-based utility called Halton Hills Hydro and Mississauga-based battery company BET Services, which had set up a 100-kilowatt-hour pilot project to demonstrate the battery’s potential: (more…)

I’ve got a two-story series in the Toronto Star that ran this week on wind energy. The first looks at claims that wind farms are causing some people living near them to become sick. The second looks at claims that wind energy costs too much, doesn’t achieve the claimed emission reductions, and simply fails to perform as promised.

I’ll let the stories speak for themselves.

I wrote these stories in response to some of the (mis)information out there and to stimulate some more reasoned debate.  There are too many extreme views circulating and neither side seems willing to bend. Bottom line is that wind isn’t a perfect solution, and it’s not the only solution, but we need it along with other renewable-energy technologies and conservation efforts. What I like about wind is that it has potential to break through its limitations as we move closer to utility-scale storage that’s economical. Yes, it relies on other dispatchable sources (particularly natural gas, but also hydroelectric and even demand-response), but 10 or 20 years from now that might not be the case. By then, we’ll have the best wind sites scoped out, we’ll have the transmission in place, and we’ll be ready to repower those sites in a way that dramatically unlocks more energy from the wind.