The consortium, calling itself the Lake Ontario Offshore Network, aims to make Ontario the North American capital of offshore wind development. The group includes Windstream Energy Inc., the only company that holds a feed-in-tariff contract with the Ontario Power Authority to sell power from offshore wind turbines into the province’s electrical grid. It doesn’t matter that Windstream, because of the moratorium, can’t currently develop its project. It hopes that by bringing together an industrial consortium it can dangle thousands of jobs in front of the government and possibly convince the powers that be to reconsider its offshore ban.

The cast that has been assembled for this PR play is impressive. The consortium includes turbine suppliers Siemens Wind Power and Vestas Wind Systems, steel fabricator Walters Inc., steel supplier Essar Steel Algoma Inc. and a number of small and medium-sized companies — Anchor Concrete Products Ltd., Ortech Power, Samuel & Son Limited, Akzo Nobel Coating Ltd. and Bermingham Foundation Solutions, to name a few. In total, 18 companies/organizations large and small have signed on, representing a comprehensive supply chain and about 1,800 jobs that could exist over a five-year period if Windstream’s project ever got the go-ahead.

And what is this project? Windstream, which is based in Burlington, Ontario, is planning to build a 100-turbine, 300-megawatt offshore wind project about five kilometres west of Wolfe Island, which is an island just offshore the city of Kingston, itself about 250 kilometres east of Toronto. My own personal feeling is that it’s not the greatest site for development, if only because it’s not far from the onshore wind farm that’s currently located on Wolfe Island and has been a lightning rod for controversy from the beginning (partly because of the density of wind turbine development there). Windstream is proposing that the government keep its moratorium but allow an exemption for its $1.5 billion Wolfe Island shoals project, on the grounds that it would be a pilot project used as part of studies that would determine if further offshore development is the right step forward.

You’ll recall from an earlier column of mine that the “pilot project” approach is one that I support and proposed last July. Specifically, I wrote, “Maybe we would have been better off to focus initially on a public-private pilot project, one located several kilometres offshore in a carefully selected location; one that could be closely studied and be a launch pad for future economic growth.” I’m happy that Windstream has embraced this approach, and it will be interesting to see how the government responds to this invitation.

But here’s the thing: I’m not convinced this is the “carefully selected location” that would be ideal for a pilot project. I’m also not convinced that a 300-megawatt project could rightly be called a “pilot”. I understand the need to go big. There are simply better economies of scale. But if a pilot was truly what Windstream envisions, it should break up the project into smaller phases, with the initial pilot phase being no larger than 20 or so megawatts (similar in size to the world’s first lake-based wind farm in Lake Vanern, Sweden) with plans to develop larger phases once the pilot has been properly studied and ultimately convinces the Ministry of Environment that offshore wind makes sense for Ontario.

I would also argue that there are much better sites to consider for a pilot, including those once held by Trillium Wind Power before the government wiped the slate clear and unjustly forced all developers without a FIT contract to start from scratch. Trillium, by the way, had also started developing a supply chain consortium before the rug was pulled from under it, resulting in a $2.25 billion lawsuit filed against the Ontario government. One wonders how any company could trust dealing with Queen’s Park these days.

But Windstream is the one that finds itself in the fortunate position of being the only developer with a FIT contract. Whether the piece of paper it holds gives it the edge when it comes to pilot-scale projects, that’s unclear. After all, pilots are given special consideration. Presumably, FIT or not, picking the location of a pilot project should be based on the site, not the developer.

The saga continues…

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.

——————————————————

Tyler Hamilton

Has the global economy entered a long period of persistently high, volatile commodity prices?

That’s a question asked recently by international consultancy McKinsey & Co., which analyzed a century of data and found that the trend – for at least the next 20 years – doesn’t look good.

The previous 100 years told a different story. Since 1910, it found that the average combined price (inflation-adjusted) of food, agricultural raw materials, metals and energy reached its lowest historical level in the late 1990s.

Sure, there were big dips during the post-World War I depression and the Great Depression a decade later. But major technological advancements in areas such as exploration, extraction and cultivation allowed us during prosperous times to satisfy the demands of a growing global population, while keeping commodity prices at record lows.

“This ability to access progressively cheaper resources underpinned a 20-fold expansion of the world economy,” according to McKinsey’s analysis.

But that same analysis shows that the past decade has bucked a century-long trend. The commodity price decline achieved over the previous 90 years has, in just eight years, been completely wiped out, says McKinsey. Pre-WWI peak prices were surpassed in 2010, and all of this is happening during extremely trying economic times.

Shouldn’t commodity prices, like during past recessions and depressions, be falling?

Not this time around, the consultancy says. “Our analysis suggests that they will remain high and volatile for at least the next 20 years if current trends hold — barring a major macroeconomic shock — as global resource markets oscillate in response to surging global demand and inelastic supplies.”

There are many reasons why this time is different. Our world population surpassed seven billion in 2010 and of that, three billion will join the ranks of middle-class consumer over the next two decades, putting immense stress on those natural resources that give us energy, food, metals and fresh water.

McKinsey, which says we are entering a new era for commodities, throws out a few sobering stats: by 2030 the global vehicle fleet will double, per-capita calorie intake in India will jump 20 per cent, and Chinese consumption of meat — production of which is energy- and water-intensive — will rise 60 per cent.

Technology, no doubt, will continue to help us boost the supply of the commodities we have come to depend on, but the concern is that it can’t do it fast enough to meet rapidly growing demand.

Meanwhile, attempts to do so will require more expensive approaches and access to more remote locations — for example, drilling for oil in the Arctic — adding cost and putting more pressure on the fragile ecosystems we depend on.

On the issue of environment, there’s also the parallel need to rein in carbon emissions to avoid catastrophic changes to the climate by the end of this century. In other words, what we’re faced with today is unprecedented, and it will require an unprecedented response.

Of interest is that some corporations are already responding, and in doing so are positioning themselves as leaders of their respective packs over the long run.

A recent Harvard Business School study that tracked the performance of 180 corporations over nearly two decades found that the most progressive companies with respect to sustainability policies and practices outperformed their peers.

A big part of this is about resource-productivity. As commodity prices increase those companies that can best minimize waste and be most efficient with the consumption of energy and water are also the ones that will be most competitive.

In addition to cutting costs and reducing their exposure to volatile commodity prices, they’ll reduce their greenhouse-gas emissions and avoid paying future prices placed on carbon.

McKinsey says the future will be all about “squeezing greater productivity” from natural resources. “Better resource productivity could single-handedly meet more than 20 per cent of forecast 2030 demand for energy, steel, water and land,” it estimates.

This bodes well for the many clean technology companies I have written about in this column over the years.

Never has there been a greater need for technologies that can help us, for example, reuse scarce water resources, reduce the carbon footprint of the products we consume and services we use, and turn what has traditionally been considered waste into valuable products or sources of energy.

These may be trying economic times, but the companies that test drive and ultimately embrace these technologies will be much better off in the long run. There will be short-term risks, but they must be measured against the longer term risks of not acting.

This is something investors may want to keep in mind as we enter 2012.

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

Fortunately, the provinces can do their own thing. As of Jan. 1, 2010, for example, retailers in British Columbia have been prohibited from restocking 75-watt and 100-watt incandescent bulbs. It was also assumed that Ontario would follow through with a similar commitment beginning Jan. 1, 2012, but there’s a strong possibility the government will backtrack at the 11th hour.

I was curious about the status of the planned phaseout, so put in a query to the Ontario Ministry of Energy. Here was the initial reply: “Following the decision by the federal government, Ontario is reviewing its options to proceed with proposed efficiency standards for general service lighting,” wrote spokesman Paul Gerard in an e-mailed reply. I asked whether the review would continue into next year, meaning the government would miss the Jan. 1 start date of the phaseout. “The outcome of the review will be announced very shortly, before the new year,” Gerard replied.

I’m not expecting good news — you never get good news during the holiday season. It may be that the province will stick to its guns and follows through, but I’m getting the feeling they won’t given the fact that, just today, U.S. Congress succeeded in neutering its own country’s 2012 light bulb phaseout by preventing the U.S. Department of Energy from enforcing the law, as detailed in the Energy and Independence Security Act 2007.

That would be a tremendous shame, making one question whether Ontario — despite the rhetoric — is taking the issue of greenhouse-gas reductions seriously. It would also further tarnish Canada’s already lackluster reputation on the climate file in the aftermath of climate talks in Durban, South Africa. At a time when we should be adding to our efforts, it seems we’re instead backtracking on previous commitments, including delaying our participation in the Western Climate Initiative (fortunately Quebec is following through). The momentum is in the wrong direction, and this is alarming. Perhaps some public pressure is needed over the next few days to convince Ontario to stick with its guns and start the light bulb phaseout Jan. 1, as planned.

Let’s be clear, this isn’t about banning incandescent bulbs — this is about bulb efficiency, where compact fluorescent bulbs and LED bulbs have the advantage. But there have been innovations around incandescent technology as well. As Steven Nadel, executive director of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, pointed out today, “five manufacturers are now producing and selling efficient incandescent bulbs that meet the standards.”  In the U.S. context law-abiding companies will still follow the rule. “Less scrupulous companies will take advantage of the lack of enforcement, selling products that waste energy and increase energy costs for consumers. If many manufacturers take advantage of the lack of enforcement, recent investments that these five manufacturers have made to produce efficient lamps could be undermined.”

Ontario needs to consider this as well. Many companies have made business decisions based on the expectation of a phaseout starting Jan. 1. Companies such as Sears Canada and IKEA have already stopped selling (inefficient) incandescent bulbs, proving that the time is right to follow through. There’s no justification for putting on the brakes now. Indeed, by forging ahead Ontario can stand out as a leader and not fall under the shadow of a federal government that’s more concerned about short-term economic gain than the long-term health of our economy and environment.

So what path will you choose, Mr. McGuinty?

If you’d like to donate (of course you do) please visit our special donations page. The money goes toward a terrific cause. Most of the men in our office are now sporting not-so-flattering facial hair. Myself, I usually have a goatee on display so my participation was more about what I shaved off than what I grew. That said, I am now reminded how much I look like my father — and man, is he a stylin’ dude.

Does it want to be in the same club as integrated oil company Cenovus, which has captured many headlines related to its venture investments in everything from fusion power to water desalination technology? Not sure, but perhaps this is the first of more tech investments to come — as sign that corporate capital is playing a more important role in a country where venture capital is hard to come by.

Morgan Solar, mind you, hasn’t had a tough time raising capital. In March 2011 it aimed to raise up to $25 million (U.S.), but with Enbridge joining the party the round is oversubscribed at $28.8 million. The interest in Morgan Solar is understandable. It has developed an inexpensive and innovative light-guide solar optic that captures and directs incoming sunlight into a tiny, high-efficiency, finger-nail sized PV chip, achieving a balance of cost, efficiency, weight, and low-profile (i.e. the system is really thin) that may be unrivaled in the market. The company says its systems cost less to build, ship, deploy and maintain than competing technologies. Indeed, it’s bold enough to say that its Sun Simba product will offer a lower Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) “than solar technologies on the market today, or known to be under development.”

It should be pointed out that Enbridge owns three solar facilities that together represent 100 megawatts of capacity. Most of that comes from its 80 MW Sarnia Solar Project, which until recently was the largest operating PV facility in the world. It’s unclear whether Enbridge eyes using Morgan Solar’s CPV systems in future projects, but the potential certainly exists for collaboration on smaller demonstration projects. The reality, however, is that Enbridge has so far let others take on solar development risks. It then steps in and buys finished, operational projects that are already generating cash.

Morgan has other partners in the mix, some of them strategic. Iberdrola S.A., one of the world’s largest renewable-energy utilities, is a strategic investor, as is Nypro Inc., a contract manufacturer specializing in precision injection molding. Nypro, for example, makes the light-guide optic for Morgan Solar.

Morgan Solar, by the way, was recently named — for the second time — to Corporate Knights’ Next 10 list of most promising Canadian cleantech companies.

——————————————–

I am wondering which planet you are living on because your article shilling for a carbon tax on Ontarions to deal with the fiscal challenges is out-of-touch with reality and arrogant.

It is obvious that you are another well-paid, fat-cat liberal with a generous expense account because it is so easy for you to push for such a dangerous, asinine, and egregious policy while you are living in your ivory-tower world. There is no doubt in the minds of readers that you and your dangerous articles are generously funded by the Green Lobby (Wind & Solar) industrial-journalism complex. People like you masquerading as reporters and journalists are the proverbial pig-at-the-trough who always want tax dollars wasted on expensive and unproven schemes and technologies.

At a time of the most severe recession in one’s memory, job losses, and financial misery for millions of people, such an approach would be financially disastrous for taxpayers, consumers, and the province. Instead of promoting growth, this insidious new tax will simply flip the province back into a prolonged slump or stalled recovery. Prices of gasoline and all commodities will shoot up if a carbon tax is introduced and this will kill-off all consumer spending and consumer confidence. Such a new carbon tax will increase and prolong employment instead of creating new jobs.

Ontarions currently pay one of the highest taxes in the world for an out-of-touch, fraudulent, kleptocratic, tax-and-spend government which blows away hard-earned taxpayer dollars on welfare bums, labor unions, special interest groups, corporate welfare queens, and anyone who has a loud megaphone in their hand.

It is easy for fat-cat and absurd journalist like you who smokes rare cuban cigars, eats caviar, and drinks the finest French champagne (all on a well-funded expense account with no limits) to sit in your exalted ivory towers dreaming about and advocating for all kinds of new taxes.

I do not ever trust any government and especially this government of Dalton McGuinty (who has a record of lying and broken promises) to impose a new tax and cut income taxes later, as you are suggesting in this article. Government is like a drug addict which wants just more new taxes like another high.

The current government is like a vermin or parasite which works on the backs of taxpayers instead of working for taxpayers.

The legacy of the current Fiberal Premier is tarnished and he will go in history as one of the most incompetent, corrupt, and prevaricating Premier of Ontario.

Taxpayers will openly rebel against this government if any more new taxes are imposed. People are fed and sick of feeding this bloated, corrupt, and arrogant government.

So, in the future, before you write any more reprehenisble articles advocating for new taxes, think about the impact of your asinine articles on the pocketbooks and wallets of ordinary people.

It is because of such stupid articles like this that I have cancelled my subscription to the paper edition of the Toronto Star. I would love to see this Liberal Star newspaper go into oblivion.

Instead of advocating for new taxes to deal with fiscal challenges, I would strongly suggest to you and challenge you to write even one article advocating for lower taxes, smaller government, a reduced bureaucracy, government services outsourced to the private sector, and less waste, spending, and corruption in government. I doubt it if you have even contemplated such an article. 

All the best to you personally but wish you the worse in your career,

Canadian who is disgusted with the kleptocratic governments.

I do like to use this blog to build hope that there are technologies, policy options, and creative initiatives out there to make the world a more sustainable place. But a few people who read the post before I took it down have encouraged me to re-post it. It’s not my typical entry, but after a bit of editing I have decided to put it back up, for what it’s worth.

——————-

There’s plenty of analysis out there about the Occupy Wall Street movement and its spreading global tentacles. What does it mean? What do the protesters want? Will it continue to grow? Will it fade away as the cold weather settles in? Every media pundit seems to have his or her own explanation, but really there are no clear answers; there is no easy way to explain this leaderless movement that has attracted a grab-bag of interest groups (who don’t necessarily agree with each other on the ideal path forward) willing to ride on its coattails.

I like to think of what’s happening as a symptom of our collective anxiety about the state of the world, our environment, the crumbling of our institutions and shared infrastructure, social inequality and injustice, our ability to feed our families, and the direction all of this seems to be heading. What world are our children and their children going to inherit?

The global population has just hit 7 billion and is expected to rise to an unsustainable 9 billion by 2050. How are we going to supply the rising demand for food, fresh water, oil and other commodities we depend on? We only have one planet. There’s only so much to go around.

Greenhouse-gas concentrations continue to climb, the climate has begun to change as a result, certain industries and coastal cities and island nations are already feeling the effects, and the (real) science tells us it’s going to get much worse. More weird weather — droughts, floods, tornadoes, extremes of heat and cold. Why are we not taking the necessary action to minimize the impacts?

The cost of the products and services we consume continue to exclude the impacts their manufacture and delivery have on the environment — our air, soil, oceans, rivers and lakes, and of course on biodiversity. On this overcrowded planet, where billions of poor aspire to have the same wasteful, energy-inefficient lifestyles as Canadians and Americans, can we continue to treat our biosphere and atmosphere as a dumping ground, without expectation of growing negative consequences?

Major world economies are struggling to manage a debt crisis that has the potential to send destructive ripples through the global economy. An obsession with fiscal deficits and a refusal in countries such as the United States to raise taxes — or, even better, create a carbon tax — has overshadowed a festering infrastructure deficit. Schools are crumbling. Roads are peppered with potholes. Bridges are unsafe. Transit takes a back seat to cars.

Healthcare is suffering from a severe case of angina, and as boomers get up there in years it’s only going to get worse. The pipes that bring clean water to our taps and take away (and treat) our dirty water are old, leaky and neglected only until crisis strikes. And even then, we slap on an expensive Band-Aid instead of invest in the kind of renewal that’s necessary and lasting. In many ways, we can’t even bring ourselves to put lipstick on the pig if it means coughing up more to do it.

Our cities are getting uglier, but like a balding, big-bellied couch potato that keeps touting his days as a star high school quarterback, we continue to rest on our laurels of past greatness. Yet pointing to past efforts of greatness alone — i.e. sending a man to the moon, mobilization during WWII — represent the sacrifices of past generations. What kind of sacrifice is this generation prepared to make?

We know all of these issues exists, or we choose to deny them. We refuse to give serious consideration to putting a price on carbon, even though this could help deal with growing infrastructure, fiscal and environmental deficits at the same time. We outright forbid serious discussion of road tolls and congestion charges and other logical measures as a way to get our cities moving again, fund visionary transit initiatives, and reduce urban smog. We scream bloody murder when electricity rates rise as part of the long-neglected but much-needed renewal of our power system, and we incorrectly pin most of the blame on green energy, yet another propaganda victory for the well-entrenched and highly profitable fossil-fuel industry.

At the same time, one can understand the outcry. This generation is simultaneously being asked to pay for their own and past excesses, decades of infrastructure neglect, and the security of our collective future at the same time. People are squeezed. They’re feeling the rise of electricity, fuel and food costs. New fees seem to arbitrarily appear every few months, gradually chiseling away at disposable income. With all of this happening, people are being told they have to take on more to keep the house of cards from falling down as they watch the top few per cent of income earners and the most profitable of corporations escape similar obligations.

Is this generation the last one into a Ponzi scheme that is close to running its course? It’s easy to see why some feel that way. Each time the music stops there are fewer and fewer chairs for the 99 per cent to sit on. Yes, people are angry — but most of all there is anxiety running deep through the population; a general feeling that we simply can’t continue with business as usual along the current path we’re on. Occupy Wall Street may be but one manifestation of this collective anxiety. Where does it lead? What lies around the corner? Can we keep the ball of thread from unraveling?

On an individual level, anyone who has battled anxiety — which can be quite crippling if left unchecked — will know that the source of anxiety isn’t always easy to identify. What I’ve just described above is not necessarily something the average person on the street thinks about every day, what with their busy lives and focus on work, family and friendship. But it’s in the news — online, on TV, on radio and in newspapers — and it does gradually permeate our subconscious. Over time, this can bring on feelings of worry, uneasiness, fear and even dread. It can be managed at first, but there is a cumulative effect until a breaking point is reached and occasional anxiety transforms into a persistent anxiety disorder. That breaking point could be an anxiety attack, or even more severe, a panic attack.

Is Occupy Wall Street one of those breaking points? Are the protests seen around the world a collective anxiety attack, or even a panic attack — one that may go away but, as with any untreated anxiety disorder, re-emerge with more intensity? That’s my take. More and more people are anxious. They’re freaking out. And they feel helpless.

Who knows where it will lead unless some meaningful action is taken to clearly identify and seriously address the source of this anxiety. There are solutions — technologies, policy options, economic models, etc. — out there if we choose to embrace them. Left ignored, however, you can bet the anxiety won’t permanently go away, and even if it does fade this time around it’s very likely to come back with more ferocity.

The election outcome means the admittedly far-from-perfect FIT will remain and the legislation protected, at least for a few years — enough time for these ambitious initiatives to prove their worth to Ontarians. In many ways, the fact Premier Dalton McGuinty’s Liberals were left 1 seat short of a majority government is a good thing, as it forces the government to consider and take seriously some legitimate concerns with how the FIT has rolled out and the lack of attention paid to energy conservation initiatives. The New Democratic Party of Ontario, which won 17 seats, are generally supportive of both the GEA and the FIT, but the fact they hold the balance of power could — and should — nudge the Liberal government to improve its approach.

1. The NDP has been rightly critical of the Liberals for their lack of attention to energy conservation programs, so perhaps now they can light a fire under the Liberals, which have done some important things on conservation but recently have only paid lip-service to it, despite the fact it’s the best and most permanent way — from both a cost and environmental perspective — to create jobs and reduce the province’s dependence on fossil fuels.

2. Expect the NDP to also force the government’s hand on the nuclear file — specifically plans to build two new reactors at the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station. Can we afford it? Does it make sense? Would the money be better spent on deep energy conservation efforts and programs to help low-income Ontarians deal with the energy transition taking place in this province?

3. The NDP’s idea of putting all the power back in the hands of a re-constituted Ontario Hydro is flawed beyond belief, but certainly one can envision a new role for Ontario Power Generation. Why not let OPG develop renewables such as wind, particularly in the far north, in a way that still respects the need for independent power developers and the partly competitive market we currently have? It won’t be easy, but certainly the question should be asked. Letting OPG put some flesh in the game could also change the dialogue with the Power Workers’ Union, which has bashed the McGuinty green energy plan partly — if not mostly — because it threatens the jobs of its unionized workers at coal and nuclear plants.

4. I would hope the Liberals, backed by the NDP, also put pressure on Hydro One, which many believe has purposely dragged its feet when it comes to upgrading transmission and distribution to accommodate green energy projects, in hopes the PCs would win the election last night. Sorry folks — your wish didn’t come true. Time to deliver on what your shareholder has asked you to do. And if Hydro One can’t do it, perhaps the government should consider the idea of permitting merchant lines in Ontario, allowing private-sector transmission developers to enter the game to fill a vacuum left behind by our public utility.

5. Finally, the NDP did seem to emphasize a need to listen to the concerns of municipalities more closely. The Liberals were too dismissive of local concerns when the GEA and FIT were launched, declaring they would have no tolerance for NIMBYism. Well, obviously that wasn’t an issue when it came to natural gas power plant protests, so the Libs have exposed themselves as hypocritical on this file. Some of those protesting wind farms in rural Ontario are extreme, and they will never be pleased. But many have more legitimate and addressable concerns that need to be heard and, when possible and reasonable, acted on. The government needs to show more goodwill in this area, otherwise it will never get the rural buy-in that it desperately needs for Ontario’s green-energy future to remain bright.

Anyway, these are just some of my initial thoughts. Please consider this an open thread. I’m interested in hearing other views out there.