Wind-power policy serves NSP’s monopoly

By RALPH SURETTE

Published: March21st in the Chronicle Herald, Opinions

IN A LITTLE-NOTICED bit of news this week, Energy Minister Barry Barnet announced that the Nova Scotia government plans to revise rules that bar Nova Scotia Power from investing in wind power companies, in hopes of helping the utility reach its green energy goals. As it is, NSP is forbidden from investing in wind turbine companies.

What this does is confirm that the Nova Scotia government’s alternative energy policies are all fog and no wind, and adds more weight to the increasingly obvious: that whatever alternative energy policy we have is what NSP wants, with the energy minister and top energy bureaucrats as faithful servants.

NSP is failing to meet its alternative energy targets, which were supposed to start with five per cent by next year. Independent wind-power contractors have not come up with enough viable projects to fill the bill, so NSP wants to do the job itself.

Off the top, this sounds reasonable enough, even economically inevitable. At a deeper level, however, there’s the harder point the alternative producers are making: that the whole thing was rigged to fail to bring about the present result – an increased monopolization of the energy field and energy policy by NSP.

This failure is in fact what they predicted – a logical result of the tendering system used to call up these projects, one that has mostly failed elsewhere. One furious wind-power entrepreneur accuses NSP of "successfully preventing the market from opening" and "driving dozens of potential independent power producers from the province or into failed-project limbo," then announcing that it’ll do the job itself.

In the "request-for-proposals" system chosen for Nova Scotia, a command-and-control utility like NSP announces a big project and calls for tenders from contractors. However, in these cases, the lowest-bidder system doesn’t work well. Often the lowest bid is too low to actually deliver as prices fluctuate and, according to some figures, as many as 50 per cent of tendered projects don’t materialize. In Europe, where differerent systems have competed for some 20 years, this approach has been declared a loser, abandoned notably by both Britain and France.

The winner is the system of "feed-in tariffs," where utilities are required to pay a set rate per kilowatt hour to anyone who produces electricity. This system has made Germany and Spain the leading alternative energy countries. Others are imitating them, meanwhile working out the bugs.

One of these jurisdictions is Ontario, which this week announced it would go ahead with feed laws, in the hope of creating 50,000 jobs in the process. Immediately, three major manufacturers of solar equipment have declared an interest in opening plants in Ontario, an early indication that the strategy will work.

One of the advantages of this system is that it unlocks the energy creativity of the society right down to the household level. Farms, co-ops, municipalities, apartment buildings and households can produce energy for their own use and if there’s a surplus, sell it to the utility at a fixed rate. Here, some do that but only after an arduous negotiation with NSP, and what they sell is at unfavourable rates.

Barnet said the appealing part was that NSP, "with a strong financial background," can inject money into wind companies. That strong financial background, remember, is basically because NSP has its hand in your pocket and mine as a private monopoly with regulated rates, and is immune to recession.

NDP Leader Darrell Dexter made the point that the province could help smaller companies by offering loan guarantees or having Nova Scotia Business Inc., the province’s private sector-led business development agency, invest in wind-turbine companies. Giving NSP total and final control "should be absolutely the last option that they proceed with," he said, pointing out that the rules keeping NSP from investing in wind energy were created to allow smaller energy producers to get a toe-hold in the province, and giving the utility the right to buy up those smaller companies now would defeat that goal.

According to Barnet, there was a "mutual coming-of-the-minds that this is the way we can meet each other’s objectives." A funny way of saying that in Nova Scotia, we have had chosen for us a failed system, one geared to advancing the energy monopoly and no doubt its shareholders, but not public energy policy.

Ralph Surette is a veteran freelance journalist who lives in Yarmouth County.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Opinion/1112413.html

Irving eyes power corridor

Company may build line that could carry 1,500 megawatts to New England

By KEVIN BISSETT The Canadian Press

Published: 2009-03-26

SAINT JOHN, N.B. — Irving Oil, Canada’s largest exporter of gasoline, is now exploring the idea of constructing a 1,500 megawatt power line to New England and facilities to generate power from wind and natural gas.

"We see ourselves as an energy company," Jeff Matthews, Irving Oil’s director of business development, said Wednesday. "Power generation, natural gas and LNG (liquefied natural gas) have become an important part of our overall portfolio."

Matthews was joined at a news conference in Saint John, N.B., by New Brunswick Premier Shawn Graham and Maine Gov. John Baldacci.

Matthews said the company has been studying the project for about a year, but will need more time to determine whether it’s economically and environmentally feasible.

If the project proceeds, government officials envision the transmission line as part of an energy corridor connecting New Brunswick with the New England states.

Officials did not provide an estimate of the costs of such an undertaking.

"The northeast energy corridor would create a path to market to increase our region’s supply of secure, reliable and clean energy, attract investment and create new economic development opportunities," said Graham.

It has been two years since Graham and Baldacci signed a memorandum of understanding to work together to find ways to secure energy supply for their jurisdictions, and provide a way to export energy to power-hungry states to the south.

"The corridor would provide an opportunity to collocate multiple energy lines, cables and other infrastructure to safely and reliably move energy," said the governor.

Both leaders stressed that every step would be subject to strict environmental impact reviews.

Matthews said building the transmission line would unlock a vast amount of potential for wind power in New Brunswick.

The natural gas component of the proposed facility would provide a base load of electricity that could be increased when the wind isn’t blowing.

While company officials say plans are far from complete, it’s expected the new power plant could generate up to 600 megawatts of power and would be located near the Irving liquefied natural gas facility in Saint John.

"Betting on any one form of energy is just too much of a risk," Matthews said. "It’s why we built our refinery in a line formation so we could expand it, it’s why we have left room in our LNG plant for more tanks, it’s why we’re studying the possibility of building an energy corridor for the future — whatever forms of energy that might bring."

The company is also exploring the idea of tidal power, and getting close to making a decision on a second oil refinery in Saint John.

Matthews said while the company is exploring a range of options, the power transmission line would be the first project if they decide to proceed with the energy corridor.

The latest announcement about the energy corridor was welcomed by Tim Curry, president of the Atlantica Centre for Energy.

He said the Irving investment would unlock a lot of energy potential for the region — and New Brunswick’s future as an energy hub.

"I think that with this announcement you will see serious investors taking a second and a third look at the potential for renewable energy projects in the region now that they have some comfort that somebody’s going to address the transmission kind of initiatives," Curry said.

New Brunswick Energy Minister Jack Keir said the corridor could see the construction of multiple power transmission lines — each built to meet growing demand.

More details of the energy corridor project are expected when the New England governors and eastern Canadian premiers meet in Saint John in September.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Business/1113303.html

Nova Scotia Power to invest in wind energy

Last Updated: Monday, March 16, 2009 | 10:25 AM ET

CBC News


The Nova Scotia government plans to revise rules that bar Nova Scotia Power from investing in wind power companies, in hopes of helping the utility reach its green energy goals.

Currently, Nova Scotia Power is forbidden from investing in wind turbine companies, but Energy Minister Barry Barnet said the province wants that to change.

"I think there was kind of a mutual coming-of-the-minds that this is the way we can meet each other's objectives," Barnet said. "It's imbedded within the regulation and I'm not sure why it was put in there in the first place. The idea was to have the independent producers have the ability to operate separately from Nova Scotia Power."

Barnet said allowing the utility to invest in independent wind power producers will help solve two major problems: It will allow cash injections into smaller companies during the current recession and it will help Nova Scotia Power develop vendors from which to purchase green energy to meet its target.

"What we're doing right now is looking at things that we can do to adjust our policy to enable companies like Nova Scotia Power, who have a strong financial background, to invest in some of these independent power producers." Barnet said he is hopeful the utility will meet its 2010 target of having five per cent of its power generated by renewable sources.

Provincial New Democrat Leader Darrell Dexter said he isn't sold on the idea of the utility investing in other energy companies because he fears it will expand Nova Scotia Power's monopolization of the industry.

Dexter said the province could help smaller companies by offering loan guarantees or having Nova Scotia Business Incorporated, the province’s private sector-led business development agency, invest in wind turbine companies.

"I think it should be absolutely the last option that they proceed with," Dexter said. "The problem is access to capital in what is a very, very tight credit market given all the economic turmoil that's going on. The best thing is to try and support those people who are out there trying to promote the use of wind power and other renewables, by making sure they have access to capital."

Dexter said the regulations banning Nova Scotia Power from investing in smaller energy companies were established to allow smaller power producers to get a toe-hold in the province, and giving the utility the right to buy up those smaller companies now, would defeat that goal.

http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2009/03/16/wind-barnet.html

The truth is blowing somewhere in the wind

Dr Goodrich was one of several people who gave some excellent presentations on wind energy at Mount A last week. There was much to think about on the drive home.

The following was published in the Amherst Daily News on March 10th.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Along the High Marsh Road and near Amherst, our marshes will soon be sprouting numbers of white columns as tall as the CBC towers, topped by whirling rotors as long as a 747.

Reactions to them will vary from delight over their beauty to despair over their ugliness, with every shade of opinion in between. But, whatever we think of them, shouldn’t we all welcome them as a source of clean energy, formidable fighters in the war on global warming? Not if a growing number of critics are right who argue that wind cannot replace fossil fuels in large-scale electricity generation, but only reduce their consumption by a limited amount.

The reason, they argue, is that wind is inherently intermittent, difficult to predict, and constantly fluctuating in intensity. Not only must it be backed up by conventional generating plants when it is not blowing sufficiently — because of its “ volatility” (delivering power in surges) it must also be “ balanced” by rapid response units in order to maintain the stability of the grid. “Balancing units” must also respond to fluctuations in consumer demand, and are thus an integral part of any grid system, but with the addition of significant amounts of wind power, they must work overtime.

Since they burn fossil fuels, usually oil or natural gas, their extra emissions must be subtracted from the greenhouse gas savings. When all things are considered, say the critics, the savings in greenhouse gas and other noxious emissions are really very small.

Advocates of wind power admit the challenges of integrating it into the grid but maintain that, by building many wind farms over a wide area, its volatility can be tamed, and it will also become more reliable, making it feasible to generate up to 20 per cent of our electricity in this way.

Beyond that, they agree, the challenges become enormous. Critics respond by pointing out what this implies: thousands of very conspicuous turbines and hundreds of miles of new power lines plastered over the country, enormous outlays of steel, concrete, gravel etc. (all with their own cost in greenhouse gas emissions) and billions of dollars in extra costs to consumers and taxpayers.

Advocates answer that the sacrifice is worth it, because once we get 15 to 20 per cent of our electricity from wind, we can shut down many coal and oil fired plants, perhaps up to 50 per cent of them, and significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Critics say that this “carpeting solution” has not so far worked even in countries with such levels of wind power. Even with more than 6,000 wind turbines in an area half the size of New Brunswick producing about 20 per cent of its electricity, Denmark has not been able to shut down any of its conventional plants. Its per capita CO2 emissions are among the highest in Europe, as is the price of its electricity.

Part of the explanation is that about 80 per cent of its wind-generated electricity is exported to Norway and Sweden because it is not needed in Denmark when it is available, owing to the perversity of the Danish wind regime. Moreover, the imported wind power does not reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Norway and Sweden because it merely replaces hydro.

This is just one illustration of the difficulty of integrating wind power on a large scale. An expert from one of the country’s biggest power companies actually said that “increased development of wind turbines does not reduce Danish carbon dioxide emissions.”

In terms of greenhouse gas abatement, Germany’s experience with wind power is even more dismal than Denmark’s, say the critics.

Upwards of 20,000 turbines eke out only six per cent of the nation’s electricity generation and its largest grid operator has, in one respect at least, sided with the critics. According to a report it published in 2005: “ Wind energy is only able to replace traditional power stations to a limited extent…Consequently, traditional power stations with capacities equal to 90 per cent of the installed wind power capacity must be permanently online in order to guarantee power supply at all times.” Thus, far from the 50 per cent claimed by some enthusiasts, the German experience suggests that 10 per cent would be a more realistic figure, and then only after a 20 per cent or more penetration of wind power into the grid.

Germany, too, has not shut down any conventional plants; on the contrary, it is building more of them. To be sure, this is partly because it is phasing out its nuclear units, but it is also an indication that even the Germans don’t believe wind can fill the gap.

I am not qualified to say who is right in this debate, having no expertise either in engineering or in electricity production. But some presumably neutral sources seem to indicate that there is more to the critics’ case than the ravings of a few NIMBYs.

A 2007 study by the National Research Council of the American National Academy of Sciences estimated that even huge increases in wind power will only “contribute to offsets of approximately 4.5 per cent in U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide from electricity generation … by 2020.” In December 2008, the British Advertising Standards Authority forced the British Wind Energy Association to reduce by half its claims of how much emissions might be reduced by wind power.

Euan Blauvelt, director of ABS Energy Research, London, goes even further: “I think the actual savings in emissions is very low,” he said in an interview with Newsday in October 2006.

As citizens, we should learn all we can about this issue. Wind power advocates have long since gotten their message into the mass media. With far fewer resources, critics have largely been limited to the Internet, where a number of excellent sites tell the story from a different perspective.

One of the most comprehensive of these is National Wind Watch (www.wind-watch.org) which posts reams of material on all aspects of wind power, not just the carbon dioxide issue — its impact on health, property values, birds and bats, the landscape, and much more.

I urge you to look at it because, if critics have indeed revealed the ‘dirty truth about clean wind power,’ then we may all become victims of an “ecoswindle’ that will make the ethanol scam seem like a schoolboy prank.

Dr. W. Eugene Goodrich, professor emeritus, Mount Allison University.

Amherst wind project now stopped: Acconia

BY DARRELL COLE, TRANSCONTINENTAL MEDIA
The Nova Scotia Business Journal

CHICAGO – The multi-million-dollar wind farm development proposed near Amherst will not be going ahead this year. Eric Schneider of Acciona Energy confirmed Friday the 30-megawatt wind farm that was supposed to go into service in November near Exit 3 of the Trans-Canada Highway will not be constructed this year.

“The project is suffering from the economic downtown. Liquidity for capital projects is scarce right now and this project is extremely capital intensive,” Schneider said. “The in-service date for that project was scheduled for November 2009. It doesn’t look like we're going to hit that and we don't have a new date.”

Acciona's proposal to erect 20 turbines on the marsh near Amherst was one of those selected by Nova Scotia Power last year as part of its pledge to use greener energy sources. The project, which includes 20 turbines, is expected to produce enough electricity to meet the power needs of 10,000 homes.

Schneider said the economic reality of the recession, coupled with volatile currency and skittish markets, is making it much more expensive to complete such large capital projects and it's making it very difficult to get financing. “Companies have to look for other ways of getting projects like this financed, whether it’s bringing in new partners or looking other options,” he said. “We’re looking at all those things.”

This is the second time Acciona has attempted to develop a wind farm near Amherst. A similar project was killed in December 2006 because rising costs meant the project was no longer viable. The company resubmitted a proposal to Nova Scotia Power in 2007 during the most recent request for proposals and entered into a 25-year power purchase agreement with the power corporation last year.

Acciona was also expected to develop windfarms across the marsh in Aulac as well as in Lameque, N.B. Both of those projects are also delayed. The Aulac project is supposed to include 43 turbines generating 64.5 megawatts - enough electricity to power 10,300 homes.

Schneider said the company is continuing to work on all three projects on things like acquiring easements and permits, but won't move ahead with construction until market conditions improve. "The permitting work is work that has to be done anyway. The hard work now will be finding the creative solutions to make the economics work and that's what we're really focused on right now," he said.

Stacey Pineau of Nova Scotia Power said the company is not aware that Acciona is not going ahead with the project this year. "I don't believe we've been formally made aware of any change to the schedule," Pineau said later Friday. "We still have our contracts in place and as far as we are aware everything is moving ahead according to the contract." – Amherst Daily News

http://www.novascotiabusinessjournal.com/index.cfm?sid=234673&sc=107&utm_source=ConstantContact.com&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DailyBuzz_20090323

Greens: Growth trumping ecology

When will government - of all political stripes - start to understand that it is the exploitation of the environment that has got us into this mess in the first place?

So what is their remedy? Exploit it some more!

Granted, this new move may skip around some duplication, but Environmental Assessments acted as safeguards for the Environment, which seems to be the first victim to "growth" and thus deserves such safety nets.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Prentice accused of using failing economy to sidestep environmental assessments

By ALISON AULD The Canadian Press

Published: 2009-03-21

Conservationists accused Jim Prentice of gutting the environmental review process in favour of jobs Friday, saying his plan to excuse certain projects from federal scrutiny will endanger sensitive habitat and wildlife.

Members of several ecological groups confronted the federal environment minister at a funding announcement in Halifax and said Ottawa is focusing on job creation and economic growth at the expense of environmental protections.

Mark Butler of the Ecology Action Centre said the minister’s plan to limit the number of public projects that will undergo federal environmental assessments runs counter to increasing international efforts to protect threatened ecosystems.

"This government doesn’t have a very good environmental track record, so when they take the axe to this act we don’t have a lot of confidence," he said.

"I have a somewhat dim view of the environmental assessment process and it could be improved, but you don’t improve it by gutting it."

The assertions are the latest from critics who claim the Conservatives are simply using the economy as an excuse to weaken the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and greatly reduce the number of reviews done every year.

Prentice had said earlier that he was surprised to learn the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency does about 7,000 assessments a year. That is in addition to reviews conducted by provinces and municipalities.

Reports leaked this week said the department is interested in cutting that annually to as little as 200.

John Baird, the federal minister in charge of infrastructure, said last month that the streamlining would eliminate 90 per cent of the reviews Ottawa does by instead relying on the provincial assessments.

On Friday, Prentice said it’s not yet clear which projects will be exempt from the federal process, but ones not thought to have any negative environmental impact — like a "green" wastewater facility — would be excused.

He insisted the "streamlining" would create jobs and speed up projects linked to Ottawa’s $12-billion infrastructure spending that could get bogged down in the review process.

"We need to make sure that the money we’re investing is invested quickly in public infrastructure," he said. "This will expedite the process (and) eliminate the duplication."

But conservation groups said they weren’t consulted on the issue and will be left in the dark on what projects won’t undergo any kind of federal assessment.

Gretchen Fitzgerald of the Sierra Club said they will know far less about how industrial development affects the environment and endangered species. Citing a quarry project in Digby, she said a key question involved its impact on the rare North Atlantic right whale.

"A lot of those issues about end species will not be discussed if you deregulate the environmental assessment act," she said.

Butler said Prentice and the federal government as a whole are using the recession as a justification for dismantling the federal act and other protections that stand in the way of business.

"I think it was highly opportunistic," he said. "They use it as a cover to make these changes . . . so we’re worried."

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Front/1112416.html

Power to the people

Over this past long, lonnnnng winter we have heard very little of what is going on in the wind energy industry in this Province.

Some appear to be dead-in-the-water (Nuttby), some are delayed (Glen Dhu) and some have been mysteriously extra quiet (Amherst). But now Spring is here, and thus the advent of construction season. I expect we will be hearing about the various wind energy projects planned for Nova Scotia very soon.

There has been some news and comments from others more recently. So, while we are waiting for some news from NS and get warmed up for the season, I will post some of the more interesting or contentious here.

The piece below is from The Economist and was seen in today's Chronicle Herald Business section.

When it comes to something like the electrical grid, what the Americans plan will have to involve Canada too. The electrical grid blatantly requires updating and what we need, as mentioned below, is better integration of systems, metering and conservation.

As this relates to wind energy, better integration will allow for more wind energy. Improved infrastructure will allow for wind energy generating plants to be located in appropriate locations that adversely impact the environment (including humans) the least.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Power to the people

‘Smart’ new electric grid announced for America’s future

From The Economist

The Illinois Institute of Technology has always exemplified efficient design. Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, a master modernist, filled its Chicago campus with simple rectangular buildings. Critics quipped that IIT’s only church spire was the chimney of its power plant.

It is fitting, then, that IIT should herald a new era of efficiency. With the help of the Galvin Electricity Initiative, it is adopting the electric grid of the future. The hope is that the rest of the country will soon have one, too.

Electrocrats have been plugging the "smart grid" for years. Now others have joined them. Barack Obama’s stimulus package contains about $4.5 billion in grants for smart-grid investments and regional demonstrations.

GE is promoting the smart grid with ads that show a scarecrow singing "If I only had a brain" from The Wizard of Oz while bouncing along an old power line.

In January Obama declared that a smart grid could "save us money, protect our power sources from blackout or attack, and deliver clean, alternative forms of energy to every corner of our nation" — grand goals indeed.

America’s power system has changed remarkably little over the past century, with centralized utilities delivering electricity to passive consumers. A smart grid would use digital technology to collect, communicate and react to data, making the system more efficient and reliable.

For example, sensors would help utilities locate problems and fix them quickly — power cuts now cost businesses more than $100 billion each year. A nimble grid would integrate electricity from both predictable sources, such as coal, and fickle ones, such as the sun and wind.

Meters, to monitor both use and prices, would give consumers more control over their electricity bill. Advocates predict that some consumption would move to cheaper, off-peak hours, easing congestion and reducing the need for new infrastructure. Consumers would save money and emissions would fall.

Installing smart meters in 25 per cent of American homes, GE estimates, would be equivalent to removing 1.7 millions cars from the roads. Plug-in hybrids, meanwhile, could charge at night, when demand is low, and even pump power back to the grid while parked during the day.

The pilot at IIT is one of many. Xcel Energy, a utility, is transforming Boulder, Colo., into what it calls the world’s first "smart grid" city. The smart grid, however, should not be confined to pilots. But the problem is figuring out how to scale up.

Advocates have many tasks, not least of which is convincing consumers that a smart grid will lower their costs, not raise them. Changing regulations, meanwhile, is even thornier. For utilities, reducing consumption means reducing revenues, hardly an appealing prospect.

The stimulus encourages rewarding utilities for efficiency, but it is local commissions that must change the rules, and they may be wary of what is still seen as a risky investment.

Illinois’ regulatory commission approved the installation of up to 200,000 smart meters in 2009. Wider investments, however, await a two-year cost-benefit study.

At the national level, standards are needed so that innovations can interact seamlessly. The National Institute of Standards and Technology, part of the Commerce Department, is expected to present only a rough framework by the summer. The momentum for a smart grid continues to build. But God, as Mies liked to say, is in the details.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Business/1112660.html

How green was my turbine

In lieu of anything new to report on developments (or not) of a wind energy development in Pugwash, following is a recent piece seen in the Globe and Mail.

This piece has engendered a lot of commentary from all points of view. The comments section, when one looks past the vitriol, has some interesting information.

Clearly, wind energy inspires a lot of conversation from all directions, sometimes with good, backed up and tested information, and sometimes not.

Whatever the point of view, at least people are talking, and are allowed to talk. Thankfully, we live in a country where that is possible.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

How green was my wind turbine
MARGARET WENTE
February 26, 2009

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty is nothing if not a visionary. He recently released a $2.2-million report, co-authored by intellectual glamourpuss Richard Florida, instructing us that the province's salvation lies in becoming more "creative." No specifics were supplied, but it sounded quite delightful. If only we can turn laid-off auto workers into art gallery owners, things will be swell!

This week, the future's looking even better, thanks to the Premier's fabulous new Green Energy and Green Economy Act. This visionary scheme will create 50,000 green jobs, more clean electricity and a healthier planet for our children. It doesn't get better than that.

"It's transformational," said John Kourtoff, CEO of Trillium Power Wind Corp., which wants to build a giant wind farm at the eastern end of Lake Ontario. "The Green Energy Act will serve as a turning point in Ontario's economic history." No doubt. It will also serve as a massive transfer of wealth to wind companies such as Trillium Power. The wind companies will get a guaranteed payment that will probably be at least twice what consumers are paying for their electricity now. The solar outfits will get an even bigger subsidy - maybe 10 times more.

Not surprisingly, wind companies from all over are lining up for a piece of the free money. Little citizens' groups have sprung up across the province to try to stop them from erecting 35-storey wind turbines in their backyards. But the Premier's energy minister, George Smitherman (a.k.a. The Enforcer), has declared that he will squash the NIMBYs like a bug.

I have wind turbines coming to my backyard, too. I wouldn't mind - if only they made sense. If only they could really help us break our addiction to coal and oil, cut our emissions etc. But they can't.

One problem with wind power is, it's not reliable. No wind, no power. No one has figured out how to store the energy from wind. That means you always need a backup source of conventional energy (natural gas, for example) to keep the lights from going out.

Wind power also eats up vast amounts of land (to say nothing of steel, cement and new transmission lines). To power a toaster, you need about 100 square metres of windy land, according to Rockefeller University's Jesse Ausubel. To power the city of New York, you'd need a wind farm the size of Connecticut.

But the real problem is this: Technologies succeed when they start to achieve economies of scale. That hasn't happened with renewables. Barack Obama's energy secretary, Stephen Chu, acknowledges that we need major scientific breakthroughs before wind, solar and biomass will become as cheap and easy to use as oil and coal. That's why Mr. Obama is planning to invest billions in basic energy research. "Everything you can think of that is a renewable - or somewhat more renewable - energy option has roadblocks to it, and needs a science solution," says George Crabtree, co-chair of a new U.S. Energy Department task force.

Right now, the best way to cut our dependence on fossil fuels is to focus on conservation. The trouble is, that's boring. A picture of a smart meter simply does not say "visionary." For that, you need a picture of happy little children frolicking among the wind turbines. Nor will conservation create 50,000 jobs. Better to pretend those laid-off auto workers will find creative new careers harvesting the wind.

"Ontario's Green Energy Act could propel the province past California as the most innovative North American leader in the renewable energy field," gushes renowned environmental activist Denis Hayes. For all our sakes, let's hope not. California invested heavily in renewables, until it ran out of energy and had to load up on natural gas in a hurry. Today, the state is disastrously broke, its power rates are astronomically high and manufacturers are leaving in droves. Twenty years from now, wind turbines, like ethanol, could well be obsolete. But hey! Every premier has got to have a vision.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090225.wcowent26/EmailBNStory/specialComment/home