Natural gas is inexpensive, seemingly plentiful and much cleaner-burning when used as an alternative to diesel fuel in transportation fleets, so it makes sense that Waste Management is converting its entire North American fleet to run on compressed natural gas. The company announced this week it has added 25 new CNG waste collection trucks to its fleet in Ottawa. About 80 per cent of all new trucks purchased by the company now run on compressed natural gas. To accommodate this fleet conversion, Waste Management has been increasing the number of fuelling stations it has to support the fleet. Currently it operates 17 of these stations across North America, but that number is expected to expand to 50 by the end of this year. Overall, the company has more than 1,400 CNG trucks in its fleet, including 100 added to its fleet in Vancouver last year. While this represents only 3.5 per cent of the entire fleet, conversion is happening at a healthy clip. It should be noted that Waste Management is also using route optimization software to reduce driving time and all trucks are programmed to turn off automatically after five minutes of idling. These are all solid initiatives that will help reduce emissions, but also reduce company costs.

From a greenhouse-gas perspective, the emission reductions aren’t massive — up to 25 per cent reduction — but the real gains here are in the reduction of smog-causing pollutants. Nitrogen oxides and diesel particulate matter are reduced by 90 per cent. Over time, it leaves open the possibility of using renewable natural gas, sourced from landfill gas and municipal wastewater biogas, to displace its fossil fuel cousin. The city of Surrey, B.C., is already heading in this direction. It now requires that natural gas-powered trucks be used for its municipal waste collection, a service being performed by BFI Canada, which has purchased 75 trucks that run on CNG. At the same time, it is launching an organics collection program for Surrey’s 470,000 residents and businesses that will see the household waste converted into biogas that will be cleaned, conditioned and used in BFI trucks. Surrey hopes the new biogas facility will begin operation in 2014.

Toronto was supposed to head in this direction as well, but from what I understand the plan has unraveled under the administration of Mayor Rob Ford.

FYI: This is a presentation and panel that I participated in in late September at the Evergreen Brick Works Forum on Leadership, Innovation and Sustainability. We were confined to a PechaKucha presentation format, meaning you have to go through 20 slides and spend no more than 20 seconds on each one — i.e. total presentation of just six minutes and 40 seconds. Needless to say, we all felt rushed, but it allowed more time for discussion. You can find the other panels here, as well as video of the keynote presentation from Jeremy Rifkin.

My Clean Break column today addresses a grudge I and many others have held against federal NDP leader Jack Layton, who passed away in August. Layton, as terrific a political leader he was, got it wrong when he adamantly opposed the suggestion during the 2008 election that Canada implement a national carbon tax. Layton favoured a cap-and-trade system, and as a result assisted Prime Minister Stephen Harper in attacking then Liberal leader Stephane Dion and his visionary (and controversial) Green Shift plan.

Fact is, Layton and Dion supported a price on carbon — that should have been more important than the details on how that price was created. By making it an election issue, Layton helped sabotage any momentum to price carbon in Canada, making it a toxic issue that to this day no federal politician without suicidal tendencies will touch.

My argument is that we need to get over this fear of a carbon tax (or carbon pricing in general), create a discussion about it — both nationally and in Ontario — and recognize how putting a price on carbon can help get our fiscal house in order and strengthen an otherwise weak climate strategy.

See column below:

——————————————————–

Tyler Hamilton

It’s hard to hold a grudge against Jack Layton.

Passionate. Likeable. Well-intentioned. Caring. These are all words to describe the former federal NDP leader.

He had a lot of things right, but many still don’t forgive Layton for helping to sabotage a proposal in 2008 that called for the creation of a national tax on carbon emissions.

The idea came from then Liberal leader Stéphane Dion, who called his plan “the Green Shift.” Money collected from a carbon tax would be used to lower personal income taxes and invest in social and environmental programs, ultimately reducing Canada’s dependency on fossil fuels and assisting the shift to a low-carbon economy.

Layton aggressively attacked the plan, contributing to a Liberal implosion at the polls and a Conservative re-election that gave us our current do-little climate strategy.

It’s not that Layton opposed putting a price on carbon; he just favoured a different approach — a complex cap-and-trade system that would let the market set the price and let the government set and adjust the emissions cap.

And it’s not like Dion did himself any favours. He had a decent policy in his hands but he did a horrible job of selling it to the public and failed miserably in defending it against Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s campaign of smear and fear.

The bitter pill is that Dion and Layton both had the goal of putting a price on carbon. Both saw it as necessary for making our industries more resource-productive while achieving meaningful emissions reductions and fulfilling international climate obligations.

But many blame Layton for playing the spoiler, and as a result, for taking talk of a serious carbon-pricing plan off the table, where it rests toxic to this day.

“You basically can’t speak of it in political company,” says Alex Wood, senior director of policy and markets at Sustainable Prosperity, a green economy think tank in Ottawa. “There’s no political home for it.”

Not federally, at least. British Columbia took the big step in 2008 with the same kind of revenue-neutral carbon tax proposed by Dion. As controversial as it was and continues to be in many circles, it hasn’t plunged the B.C. economy into an abyss.

Quite the opposite. The province now has the lowest per-capita consumption of gasoline in the country and the lowest income tax rates. Its GDP has grown over the past three years at a time when the global economy is struggling, and the expectation is that B.C. will outperform the Canadian provincial average in 2012.

Carbon emissions, meanwhile, appear to be heading in the right direction. Next year the tax will rise to $30 per tonne of CO2 equivalent emissions, pulling in nearly $1 billion for the province, which will redistribute that revenue mostly through income tax cuts.

Each year that passes makes it harder to kill the B.C. carbon tax, says Wood. “No government will be able to come in and say we’re cutting this but we’ve got to raise your taxes. Politically it’s achieved an almost untouchable status.”

So when Harper insisted Dion’s plan would “screw everybody,” as The Economist magazine recently reminded us, it’s instructive to look at B.C. as we head into climate talks next week in Durban, South Africa, and ask: are we collectively getting screwed by not having a national carbon-pricing scheme?

We have a sense of the economic costs of not acting. The independent National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy estimated in September that climate impact costs for Canada would reach $5 billion annually by 2020 and as high as $43 billion a year by 2050.

Australia, a kindred spirit to Canada with similar resource-dependent industries, has seen that writing on the wall. It decided after years of Canadian-style foot-dragging that a carbon price is good for the country’s long-term economic health.

It is now poised to introduce a national carbon tax in July 2012 that will morph into a cap-and-trade system after a few years. The policy is part of a larger economic reform initiative aimed at making the transition to a clean energy economy.

An optimist might hope that Australia’s move will rub off on Canada, which could use the revenues from a carbon tax (or cap-and-trade system) to help get its fiscal house in order. It could generate tens of billions of dollars annually by 2020 that could go toward lowering income taxes, reducing the deficit, or boosting investment in climate-friendly public infrastructure projects.

If not federally, maybe it will rub off on Ontario. Saddled with what’s expected to be a $16-billion deficit this year, the province could benefit by slapping a price on carbon.

That was the plan in 2008 when Ontario joined the Western Climate Initiative, a group of Canadian provinces and U.S. states (including California) trying to set up a regional carbon cap-and-trade system. But six U.S. states recently pulled out and Ontario, which was supposed to launch on Jan. 1, is now waffling.

Maybe former TD Bank economist Don Drummond can talk some sense into Premier Dalton McGuinty. Drummond is expected to issue a report in January that will advise the McGuinty government on how to proceed with economic reforms.

Drummond is a fan of carbon pricing, particularly the idea of a carbon tax, having endorsed Dion’s Green Shift plan for the benefits it could bring to the Canadian economy.

It’s not entirely impossible that Drummond might try to stimulate talk of an Ontario carbon tax for Ontario, as toxic as the two words might be.

No thanks to Jack.

But seriously, isn’t it time we had an honest and adult discussion about it?

Tyler Hamilton, author of Mad Like Tesla, writes weekly about green energy and clean technologies. Contact him at tyler@cleanbreak.ca.

My Clean Break column today takes a look at a wind turbine design out of the University of Ottawa. It’s a twin contra-rotating blade system, meaning there are two sets of blades each spinning in opposite directions. The engineers who designed it say that wind-tunnel tests prove it is more efficient and — an added bonus — much quieter because the vibrations from each blade system help cancel out each other. Read the full column below:

———————————————————————

Tyler Hamilton

There was a time not so long ago that seeing a single wind turbine spinning in the distance was a novel experience for most people.

Not so much any more. There are now hundreds of wind turbines scattered across the province, representing 1,700 megawatts of wind capacity in Ontario alone — or just over a third of all capacity in Canada.

Hundreds more are in the queue waiting to be installed. Most are large turbines, about 2 megawatts or more in size, and between 80 and 100 metres high. All look pretty much the same: a big tall white tower with three spinning blades attached by rotor to a massive nacelle, which houses the generator and gearbox.

But as researchers continue to improve the efficiency of wind power generation it’s quite possible that the turbine of tomorrow will look dramatically different.

There are proposals for two-bladed turbines. There are vertical-axis turbines that look and spin like egg beaters. One company called FloDesign has a turbine that looks like a jet engine on an airplane, while Toronto-based WhalePower wants future turbine blades to resemble humpback whale flippers.

Over at the University of Ottawa, a group of students and professors who dub themselves the “Green Engineer” have come up with their own creative approach — a wind turbine with two sets of blades each spinning in opposite directions.

They call it the contra-rotating small wind energy converter. Wind tunnel tests on a prototype have shown that the design is up to 40 per cent more efficient and far less noisy than a conventional single-rotor system.

The benefits of having contra-rotating blades are well known. In fact, the design has existed for more than a century and is widely used, for example, in propeller systems of submarine torpedoes. The concept is also used in airplane and boat propulsion systems, not to mention those remote-controlled toy helicopters you can fly inside your house.

Riadh Habash, professor of technology and engineering at the University of Ottawa, says his team decided three years to apply the same approach to wind turbines and are encouraged so far with the results — so much so that they’re busy building a second prototype that will be mounted next summer atop a building on the Ottawa U campus.

Why is having two blade systems spinning in opposite directions more efficient?

When the wind blows into a conventional three-bladed, single-rotor wind turbine less than 40 per cent of its energy is converted into electricity. The rest escapes, much of it in the air wake that’s created behind the blades. That wake spins in the opposite direction (i.e. counter-clockwise) to those blades.

If a second rotor with another set of blades is right behind the first rotor, and if it is designed to also spin counter-clockwise, it can capture energy from that wake. The end result is a turbine system that harnesses much more energy from the initial flow of wind.

Experiments to date also suggest that a turbine with such a design can operate at lower wind speeds, allowing it to tap into a broader range of wind resources.

Habash says an added, but just as important, benefit is that the design is also quieter. “We have observed that when you have two sets of blades that are contra-rotating they achieve a kind of vibration cancellation. There is a clear reduction in vibration.”

This is good news, as one of the biggest issues hindering the deployment of wind energy — particularly in Ontario, for some reason — is concerns related to noise and inaudible vibrations reportedly experienced by nearby residents.

The Green Engineers and their industry partners, including Ottawa-based TRIAS Innovations, have some other tricks up their sleeves. All of them are aimed at producing a superior wind turbine with all parts — blades, generator, power electronics, drive train and tower — manufactured in Canada.

They’re even chatting with WhalePower about incorporating its whale-inspired blade design, further adding to turbine efficiency and noise reduction.

“Our target market for now is small wind turbines,” says Habash, who leads the team. “We are aiming at 10 kilowatts. But in the future that could go up to 100 kilowatts, and if we can prove the concept it could then be applied to much larger turbines.”

The project has been funded by the university, Ontario Power Authority, Ontario Centres of Excellence and Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

Habash hopes to be able to demonstrate the second machine in a number of locations. One would be part of a combined wind and energy storage project in an aboriginal community. “We have some investors who are very interested in using this for community power,” he says.

It’s still early days, but it’s an example of how wind power design could evolve over the coming years, based on innovation coming directly out of Ontario.

Check out this YouTube video from the University of Ottawa.

Tyler Hamilton, author of Mad Like Tesla, writes weekly about green energy and clean technologies. Contact him at tyler@cleanbreak.ca

My Clean Break column this week is kind of a Part II to last week’s column about the need for creating financing programs, such as Property-Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) or Property-Assessed Payments for Energy Retrofits (PAPER) programs, to get the energy-conservation ball rolling in Ontario. Last week I focused on residential retrofits. This week the spotlight is on commercial and multi-tenant buildings, with a look at some early successes by a consortium led by the Richard Branson-backed Carbon War Room and the potential of Toronto’s Tower Renewal program, which like the residential opportunity has been held back because the Ontario government has been slow to make the required regulatory amendments.

——————————-

Clean Break

By Tyler Hamilton

Jigar Shah thinks large when it comes to battling climate change.

That’s a good thing, because reducing humanity’s global greenhouse-gas emissions to a manageable level is a titanic problem needing equally enormous solutions.

Shah is the chief executive of Carbon War Room, a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit enterprise co-founded and funded by British-born billionaire Richard Branson.

His mission, as the organization’s name makes clear, is to wage a war against carbon emissions by harnessing the power of markets and entrepreneurs. The trick is to get massive amounts of private capital to flow in the right direction.

Government policy is nice and has a role to play, but in Shah’s words the real action we need will only come about “using greed as a force for good.” And incremental steps won’t cut it. In a world that tends to measure greenhouse-gas emissions by megatons, Carbon War Room is only interested in tackling gigatons.

In other words, go big and move fast or lose the war.

Time appears to be running out – and it’s not environmentalists issuing the warning these days. Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency, said this week “the door is closing” on our ability as a society to keep global emissions and temperatures to within manageable levels.

We already know that temperatures are on course to rise 2 degrees C no matter what we do. We have about five years, said Birol, to put the world on a course that will keep the thermometer from rising much further. “I am very worried,” the economist told the U.K.’s Guardian newspaper.

One area where Carbon War Room is moving fast and aiming at a large target is energy efficiency in buildings, which accounts for about 20 per cent of global CO2-equivalent emissions.

For example, Shah and his team helped bring together a consortium that is aiming to spend $650 million (U.S.), to start, on energy-efficiency retrofits in commercial buildings scattered throughout Miami, Fl. and Sacramento, Calif.

Their approach, revealed in September, builds on the creative financing model I wrote about in last week’s Clean Break column, only in this case it’s focused on commercial real estate.

The consortium is led by Ygrene Energy Fund, which reviews retrofit proposals and then passes them off to technology and engineering giant Lockheed Martin. Lockheed does the building audits, calculates the energy savings that could come from a retrofit, and provides all technology and services required to achieve those energy savings.

Energi Insurance Services reviews what Lockheed promises and insures the deal. To add an extra layer of security, HannoverRe further backs Energi’s insurance policy. The idea is that risk has been reduced so much that Barclays Capital, the financing partner in the consortium, is more than happy to fund it all.

Barclay’s gets paid back through a charge on the building owner’s property taxes that is collected by the municipalities over 15 or 20 years. If done right, that charge is less than the energy savings achieved through the retrofit. And it’s all done off-balance sheet, meaning it doesn’t add to a building owner’s debt load.

Miami and Sacramento love it, too. “They are going to generate 17,000 jobs, and they will see city revenues increase from a jump in building permit fees and sales tax revenues,” says Shah, in Toronto last week to speak at an industry conference.

Carbon War Room’s target is to see $300 billion (U.S.) in capital deployed in this way by 2020, and Shah is convinced a tipping point has already been reached.

“We have 65 cities on three continents begging us to deploy (this model) in their cities right now, and we’re moving as fast as we can,” says Shah, adding that pension funds and big institutional investors, having seen Barclays take the lead, are now coming to the table.

“There’s nothing anyone can do to stop it. It has irreversible momentum,” Shah says. “I’m ecstatic about it.”

That’s the power of aggregation, scale and thinking large. It can tap into massive pools of capital that one-off projects can’t touch.

Toronto has its own program in the works called Tower Renewal, which is aiming to see 1,200 residential apartment buildings in the GTA retrofitted at a cost of about $6 billion over 20 years.

The plan is to create an arms-length entity called Tower Renewal Corporation that would manage the program and arrange all financing. Project director Eleanor McAteer says the potential for energy savings, emissions-reduction and job creation is huge.

“Our approach would be very similar to what we’re reading about in Sacramento and Miami,” she says.

“We’ve had some general discussions with the financing marketplace and yes, there is a great deal of interest, but we need to have regulatory approval from the province before we can enter into any serious discussions.”

The city asked the province to make those regulatory changes in summer 2010. As the end of 2011 fast approaches there’s still no word from Queen’s Park.

So as momentum around the world for this kind of climate solution builds, Toronto is sitting and waiting for a simple action from the province that will come at no cost to taxpayers or ratepayers.

What’s the holdup Premier McGuinty?

Tyler Hamilton, author of Mad Like Tesla, writes weekly about green energy and clean technologies.