UPDATE: After a sincere attempt to transcribe last evening’s Green Government debate, I have decided to not proceed because certain parts of the debate were inaudible on my digital recorder. It would be unfair to post a transcript in which the comments of certain candidates are not accurately recorded. My apologies. I will, however, soon have access to a link where people can watch the full video of the debate.

In the meantime, I will post here the four questions I asked and candidates have the opportunity, if they choose, to respond more clearly and concisely on this blog. Their responses can be sent to tyler@cleanbreak.ca and will be posted soon after they are received. (NOTE: Sarah Thomson has replied. Read below for her comments.)

Question #1: What are the top three environmental issues facing the city today and how do you plan to address them?

Question #2: Building on past efforts, how can a major municipality like Toronto do a better job of reducing its greenhouse-gas emissions?

Question #3: Can the green economy be a future economic engine for Toronto? If so, in which areas should Toronto focus its efforts and how would you, as mayor, support emerging green businesses?

Question #4: Where does each candidate stand on the use of energy-from-waste technologies, both as a way to manage municipal waste and generate electricity for the city?

Here are some links to coverage of last evening’s event — the Toronto Star, the Globe and Mail, and the National Post (and here).

Also, check out Toronto Star columnist Catherine Porter’s account of the evening on Twitter.

If you attended the debate, I welcome your comments. Who won? Which particular responses stood out?

To read candidate answers received so far click for more…

Reply from mayoral candidate Sarah Thomson

Question 1: Top 3 environmental issues are

1. Transit – build an expanded subway system. Surface transit adds to congestion which creates more pollution. Expanding our subway through 4 funding models : Rush hour road tolls on the DVP and Gardiner Expressway; Win back the provincial funding with popularity of subway expansion plan; work with developers to help pay partial cost on subway stations; and create a subway bond to help pay for expansion quickly.

2. Achieving 70% waste diversion – through green bin program in apartments. Greenlane landfill will last for next 100 years if we are able to get Toronto to divert 70% of our waste.

3. Green Economy: Buying green, supporting locally green production, and talent. We must stimulate a green economy in Toronto. Toronto needs to take advantage of the great reputation we have and use the buying power of the city to support local green businesses.

Question 2: What can the City of Toronto do to further reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and encourage business to reduce their emissions?

 

I have 3 initiatives

Time shifting: I will bring large employers together to create options for employees – shifting start times or creating satellite offices. Time shifting processes can include the accelerated development of at-home knowledge workers, time differentials for arriving and departing employees, and the creation of work centres in high-priority neighbourhoods outside the city’s core.

My administration will encourage alternative energy solutions for businesses. My administration will work with Toronto Hydro to create a financing program that will enable businesses and residents to install solar rooftop systems.

Hybrid Taxi’s: We must change the bylaws in Toronto to allow taxi’s to buy smaller hybrid vehicles. Currently taxi’s have a 5 year lifespan. If we extend the lifespan for hybrid taxis to 7 years Cab Companies will buy into the program

Question 3: Can the “green economy” be a future economic engine for Toronto? If so, in which areas should Toronto focus its efforts and how would you, as mayor, support emerging green businesses?

 

Yes, Toronto can use its large buying power to help local green businesses. We have lost a lot of manufacturing from Toronto, and green product manufacturing could be a way to create more jobs and give more stability to our economy.

Toronto can offer tax reductions to local green manufacturers who set up in high priority neighbourhoods in our city. I have called for use of local green building products and local talent in city projects wherever possible.

I have called for the opening up of green options to encourage energy savings through white roofs, solar roofs and green roofs. The current bylaw requires green roof on any new development, it is not bad in concept but does narrow the focus to only one form of green technology. We must open up options for white, solar and other energy saving techniques as this could restrict green production in Toronto.

Question 4: Where does each candidate stand on the use of energy-from-waste technologies, both as a way to manage municipal waste and generate electricity for the city?

 

I believe that we must be open to the use of energy from waste technologies. This does not always include incineration and I do not want to fall into that limited view. There are companies based here in Ontario like EWS with technologies like the reverse polymerization process that uses high-energy microwaves to break down materials to their chemical components. Sault Ste. Marie is installing a tire reclamation plant that will be using this new technology and I believe that Toronto should be open to new technologies like this.

My administration will unlock the doors of our city and invite our innovators, our entrepreneurs, and our creative people back into the role of guiding our city forward. We must be open to new technologies, to innovation and entrepreneurs with proven solutions.

————————–

Still waiting for Ford, Smitherman, Pantalone and Rossi to reply…

Biofuels can be a good thing and part of the fight against climate change, but not if produced irresponsibly.

Before Romm even got into blogging he authored the book Hell and High Water, which I was first to review. Before that he wrote The Hype About Hydrogen, which effectively let the air out of Jeremy Rifkin’s Hydrogen Economy balloon.

As we wait for the perfect and affordable household light bulb, it’s nice to see niche LED markets thriving, such as that for municipal streetlights. Companies such as Halifax-based LED Roadway Lighting are making great headway with products that can lower energy consumption by at least 50 per cent and up to 80 per cent and offer better quality and reduced maintenance.

The car goes on sale in Canada in the fall of 2011. The price will range from $30,000 to $40,000, and that’s relying only on the standard 120-volt charger. The upper range is too expensive for me, considering what the Nissan Leaf is likely to cost, but if Mitsubishi can come in with a pre-incentive cost of $30,000, and if I could get a $5,000 subsidy from the government, then at $25,000 it looks more doable. Will be interesting to see if Mitsubishi can match the GM and Nissan 10-year warranties, and offer good lease terms. Currently, as somebody who will be in the market for an electric car in 2012, it’s a competition between the i-MiEV and the Leaf.

The Atikokan station was built 25 years ago and has a capacity of 230 megawatts. The plant has produced annually as much as 1.5 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity. If it’s expected to generate 150 million kilowatt-hours when burning biomass — or one-tenth of peak annual output — it means the plant will be used primarily as a peaker and for other backup purposes.

I know there are concerns within the environmental community, also expressed by Ontario’s environmental commissioner, about the wisdom of using biomass for power generation. The fear is that the biomass that makes up the fuel wood pellets won’t be harvested sustainably, and there is also skepticism related to the “carbon neutrality” of biomass when used as a fuel. Also, particulate emissions are still a concern with burning biomass, so while it may serve a climate change strategy it won’t necessarily address local pollution problems. Obviously, these concerns need to be addressed so that all stakeholders are satisfied, but given the choice, I still believe that biomass is a better option than coal, particularly when it’s only used sparingly and for backup.

What do you think?

California-based market research firm iSuppli came out with a report today that forecasts rapid growth of solar PV installations in Ontario, though warns of a bottleneck in production during the first half of 2011 as developers struggle to meet stricter local content requirements. In 2009 Ontari0 had 69 MW of installed PV, but iSuppli said that will grow by 272.5 per cent to 257 MW in 2010. Stricter rules requiring 60 per cent local content will kick in next year, however, and that will create a supply crunch that slows down growth until the last quarter of 2011 when local manufacturing catches up with demand. As a result, we’ll see growth of 75.5 per cent in 2011 as installations climb to 451 MW. In 2012 we’ll see that number climb past 600 MW.

Mike Sheppard, a PV analyst with iSuppli and author of the report, says companies that have set up local manufacturing in Ontario will benefit the most during the 2011 crunch. According to an iSuppli press brief, “Firms like Canadian Solar, SMA, Fronius and Silfab are stepping in to meet the demand for local solar components, building module and inverter manufacturing facilities in Ontario.”

Sheppard acknowledged that Ontario’s decision to shut down all coal plants by 2014 and its introduction of a Green Energy Act and feed-in-tariff program are driving the explosive growth in PV. He called Ontario’s FIT program “North America’s first comprehensive guaranteed pricing structure for electricity production from renewable fuels sources including solar PV, bio-energy waterpower and wind.” The program, according to iSuppli, “could have a major influence throughout North America.”

This is a positive evaluation, but I don’t think it’s as positive as it could be. As I outlined earlier, module manufacturers alone are setting up local production facilities with a combined annual capacity of more than 1,000 MW. Not all will be built, but iSuppli seems to think that actual installations will be limited to between 150 and 200 MW a year. If that ends up the case, we could end up having some major oversupply issues in Ontario by the end of 2011. But given the huge volume of FIT applications being received by the Ontario Power Authority and amounting to potentially several thousand megawatts, I’m wondering if iSuppli is low-balling its forecast.

The company is “developing high-voltage drivetrain solutions that can best take advantage of the unique capabilities represented by anticipated high-voltage energy sources such as EEStor Inc.’s technolog.” In the past, it was all EEStor and nothing but the EEStor. Something has changed, or ZENN is merely trying to prepare itself for possible failure in Cedar Park. It is also pursuing patents for complementary technologies “applicable to both EEStor and non-EEStor energy storage systems.” Here the company is emphasizing alternatives, as well as other technologies beyond storage that it may be able to transition its business around. Personally, it sounds a stretch.

Other comments: “The Company is also actively engaged in opportunities to establish relationships with, or invest in, third-party companies that can provide complementary technologies that will enhance the Company’s overall solutions offering.” If EEStor is for real and does deliver, it won’t need complementary technologies, right?

Final comments from CEO Ian Clifford are also a bit wishy-washy.

“We continue to move forward with investments in engineering and business development initiatives that we believe will deliver the greatest long-term shareholder value,” stated Clifford, who is basically saying Don’t worry, if EEStor falls through we’ll have other pokers in the fire.

What he doesn’t say is where EEStor is at, and what shareholders can expect from that relationship. Given that the investment in EEStor is all there is to ZENN, you’d think it would be incumbent upon Clifford to say much more.

Nova Scotia is out to prove that tidal power can be competitive with other sources. It has the only tidal power facility in North America and one of just three in the world — the Annapolis Tidal Power Plant, which I visited and found fascinating. It’s an old barrage-style facility constructed in the early 1980 and only capable of generating about 20 megawatts. Newer technologies planned for the Bay of Fundy, however, include turbines developed by Ireland-based OpenHydro, which is testing one of its machines near the Annapolis site. N.S. Power sees it quite realist to develop about 300 MW of tidal power in Nova Scotia between now and 2020, or roughly 10 per cent of the province’s capacity. Not bad. Some studies suggest there’s as much as 2,000 MW of development potential there.

In a country where the federal government considers green energy policy and investment a nuisance, it’s refreshing to see yet another province kick its green plans into high gear.

Rob Ford, Joe Pantalone, Rocco Rossi, George Smitherman, and Sarah Thomson have all agreed to participate. Ontario Environmental Commissioner Gord Miller will be giving a keynote talk before the debate. The event is open to the public, but tickets are $30 and can be bought online. It should be an insightful evening.