My Clean Break column today takes a look at the power of Web 2.0, or social networking, or whatever you want to call it as a way to problem-solve or influence consumer and social behaviour as it relates to energy consumption, management and production. I take a look at a new initiative in Toronto called ClimateSpark.ca that is using the Web as a way to access a community of good ideas that might otherwise be lost in the noise or overlooked by a finicky venture-capital crowd. I also look at a new Toronto-based Web venture called Lowfoot.com that is trying to created a Facebook-like community of energy users who can participate in a cash-for-conservation program that rewards good behaviour. Who knows if it will work, but clearly there appears an emerging role for Web 2.0 in the energy game.

My Clean Break column in this week’s Toronto Star looks at the way public money is being spent on green energy initiatives in Ontario. I basically give a thumbs up on grants that help to link up the province’s schools with new made-in-Ontario clean technologies that help reduce energy use or promote renewable energy. The money is well spent: it helps schools become greener and lower energy bills, and it helps local companies without a product track record get some experience in the field that can be leveraged in the marketplace.

I’m less keen on the way money is handed out for fairly straight-forward energy retrofits. For example, the province has committed $550 million to help public schools become more energy efficient over the years. But rather than simply hand over that money, why wasn’t it set aside in a revolving fund that instead offers low-interest loans to school and long-term payback terms. The idea here is that schools could pay off the loans over several years through energy savings, keeping the fund in tact. Over 10 years, such a fund could invest three times its original amount. In other words, it’s not a one-time gift but instead the gift that keeps on giving.

When we’re dealing with such low-hanging fruit — i.e. energy efficiency projects using well proven approaches and technologies — why can’t we be more creative with public money, especially when it’s being spent on municipal, hospital, school and other public buildings?

Mossadiq Umedaly, former co-founder and CEO of Xantrex Technology, former chairman of BC Hydro, and former Ballard Power executive, has become a venture partner at Wellington Partners, a top European venture capital firm based out of Munich and London. Beyond being a great guy, Mossadiq is a Canadian cleantech veteran. Let’s hope his new role at Wellington will bring greater focus on promising Canadian cleantech companies in need of early-stage financing.

Just a week after CIBC said it was forming an investment team at the bank to explore all aspect of green energy and clean technology financing, TD Bank is saying: us, too!

Now, I predicted the CIBC announcement would encourage other major Canadian banks to follow, but TD’s effort is rather half-hearted. The company put out a press release yesterday pointing out that its lending businesses are financing a number of green energy projects approved under Ontario’s feed-in-tariff program. “Small business owners, schools, retailers, agricultural businesses, solar panel manufacturers and installers, utilities, and others are encouraged to talk to TD about their financing requirements for solar power and other renewable energy systems,” the bank said in a statement.

TD is focusing here on the microFIT — that is, projects under 10 kilowatts — so this is an appeal to small business specifically. There’s no indication yet whether TD is prepared to tackle financing for larger projects in a coordinated, targeted fashion. And even with this release, all the company is saying is “come talk to us, we’ll listen.” The first sign this is a half-hearted effort is that TD offers up a quote from its chief environmental officer, Karen Clarke-Whistler. A senior executive, yes, but a person you’d expect to weigh in. What I’d like to see is the president, chief operating officer, etc… somebody at the very top that’s signalling the bank’s commitment to this area. I’d also like to see a sign that TD is preparing to develop a group or team or whatever that’s focused on the opporunities — both small and large.

TD is going to have to do better than this.

Kudos to Vincent Chornet. The president, CEO and co-founder of Montreal-based Enerkem (along with his father, Esteban) has in just a few years turned his company into a leading player in the emerging waste-to-fuel market. Today, Enerkem gained even more momentum, announcing it had secured $53.8 million in venture financing in a round that included Houston-based Waste Management, the continent’s top waste-management firm.

Enerkem uses a thermochemical fluidized-bed process to gasify municipal solid waste (organics, wood waste, plastics), demolition wood, and agricultural/forest residues. The resulting syngas is cleaned and, using a proven catalyst, can be turned into a variety of end products, including methanol, ethanol and high-value olefins (plastics). The company is in the process of building a waste-to-ethanol facility in Mississippi (75 million litres a year) and an Edmonton plant (36 million litres a year) that will also turn sorted municipal solid waste into ethanol. The Edmonton facility is being done in partnership with Greenfield Ethanol, Canada’s largest independent ethanol producer. Meanwhile, in Westbury, Quebec, the company has a commercial-scale demonstration facility that currently turns old wooden hydro poles into ethanol.

Rho Ventures, Braemar Energy Ventures and BDR Capital, all existing investors, participated in the financing round with Waste Management, along with new investor Cycle Capital. “This financing round validates Enerkem’s business and advances our path towards leadership in the waste and advanced fuels markets,” said Chornet in a release. In an earlier story (July 2008) I wrote for Greentech Media, Chornet said that burning waste or burning the syngas created from waste is, well, a waste. Based on electricity and ethanol prices at the time, a company can make three times more revenue per tonne of processed waste compared to a plant that simply burns its syngas to generate electricity, he said. Chornet also said Enerkem’s process is profitable with oil at $50 a barrel and if the company can get a competitive tipping fee to take the garage.