Comments on: BC Energy Watchdog Sides With Fossil Fuels

By: Earth Power Energy System, How To Cut Your Energy Costs. | 7Wins.eu

Earth Power Energy System, How To Cut Your Energy Costs. | 7Wins.eu — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 17:14:43 +0000

[...] Wind power technology | Wind Turbines and Wind Energy BuzzSungevity Blog » Blog Archive » Rising Electricity PricesThe Truth about Earth4Energy: Is it a scam? » RIPOFF REPORT: Earth4Energy Scam – Earth4Energy ReviewGoing Green is Like Losing Weight | SC for GreenSustainable Design Update » Blog Archive » Sphelar Solar CellsHow To Make Your Own Electricity From Solar Wind Energy by Josee Bedard | Green Village HomeDo you need wind power? | Wind Energy SolutionsZeroCarbonCanada.ca » Blog Archive » BC Energy Watchdog Sides With Fossil Fuels [...]

By: Tanislaw

Tanislaw — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 19:31:16 +0000

But any renewable is uncompetitive without government subsidies as well.

Not true. If there were 2-tier pricing, one for brown energy and the other for green-energy, you would see the market price of green energy to settle at about twice that of brown energy. Then you dont need subsidies.

The monopolies (pulic and private) are fighting green market pricing tooth and nail. That is why they favor cap and trade.

By: enviral

enviral — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 19:57:11 +0000

yeah true Barry Sax, nuclear needs subsidy to be competitive. But any renewable is uncompetitive without government subsidies as well. Nuclear per kwh is competitive with coal. wind is not, never has been and its going to take alot more innovation to make it a viable alternative. As well, the last 9 CANDU reactors that haver been built on time and on budget.

By: Why the BC Utilities Commission Rejected BC Hydro’s Long Term Plan « GreenPolicyProf

Sat, 01 Aug 2009 18:27:57 +0000

[...] a rejection of the BC government’s plan to rely on private power for future electricity supply. Climate activists have blasted the recommendation to increase reliance on the fossil fuel fired Burrard Thermal [...]

By: Barry Saxifrage

Barry Saxifrage — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 07:36:06 +0000

enviral complains about government subsidies for wind power but then says nuclear is the most pragmatic alternative to fossil fuels. we must be reading different news reports and data.

to start with there will never be another nuke built unless government agrees to carry the liability insurance for it like they do with all the existing ones. private industry is pretty clear that if they are going to have to take any of the liability risk they won’t build them at any price anyone will tolerate. we just saw that in Ontario where a requirement to assume some liability helped send the bids skyrocketing out of reach.

also if you look at the new generation nukes being built in the world from turkey to areva fiasco in finland you see billions in cost overruns, none of which the private sector will agree to cover. finally it seems the nuke industry refuses to build a plant for a pre-set kW price.

whatever your view on nuclear power, everything I’ve read recently shows it is economically unviable without massive government subsidy.

By: Minister Lekstrom on BC Utilities Commission decision « Lead The Way BC

Minister Lekstrom on BC Utilities Commission decision « Lead The Way BC — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 00:08:41 +0000

[...] Not sure if you saw the Twitter post the other day but the BC Utilities Commission sided with fossil fuels and decided against BC Hydro’s bid to move to clean [...]

By: Chris Hatch

Chris Hatch — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 22:24:50 +0000

The picture would look something like: You make large cuts in energy demand. McKinsey just released another excellent review of the potential for energy and $$ savings. They figure the US could meet its 2020 targets with conservation and cogeneration and lower the US energy bill $700 Billion. Here are a couple links:
http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/electricpowernaturalgas/US_energy_efficiency/
http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/success-stories-in-energy-efficiency/
http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/29/mckinsey-2008-research-in-review-stabilizing-at-450-ppm-has-a-net-cost-near-zero/
Then for somewhere with big heritage dams, you use the hydro for baseload. Even better, you have transmission to allow intermittent renewables to smooth each other — this is working already in the Nordics — hydro backs up wind even between nations and geographically dispersed wind back each other up. Then add in other renewables to the portfolio.

Not (yet?) as cheap as fossil fuels as you point out. But there are other kinds of costs to be internalized too. And feel free to make your pitch on nuclear. But all arguments aside, as a practical matter I just don’t see it getting into the mix in the BC context.

By: enviral

enviral — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 19:53:17 +0000

You say ramp up wind production but you fail to see the vast amount of public money to even make these wind farms financially competitive. In Ontario they need feed in tariffs, and massive subsidies and yet these things are still more expensive than traditional sources of energy. And then the intermittent problem arises. What are you going to base-load with. In Ontario as well as other ‘wind leading’ energy mixes like Denmark they base-load with natural gas. So what does zero carbon Canada propose?
Not nuclear of course the most prgmatic way to wean ourselves off of fossil fuel energy production.

By: MichaelLewkowitz

MichaelLewkowitz — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 00:35:42 +0000

From the Ontario experience, it’s clear that it requires extraordinary leadership to compel the energy institutions to shift their cultures and mindset. It’s difficult but critical if policy is to be implemented that enables community-based, renewable, distributed energy infrastructure.

Politically too it should be palatable if the voter sentiment is anything like it is Ontario and if the green jobs aspect to renewables plays well – which I’d expect it would in this economy.

By: monikamm

monikamm — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 23:04:44 +0000

On the smaller scale, if the Taku river project built by the Tinglit, which took Aitlin off diesel generators, was developed to supply power for the local community, then they are not subject to re-selling permits from the BC Utilities Commissions (except for the standard environmental ones) so the BCUC decision has absolutely no effect on them, or other similar projects. It is only the projects that tap into NAFTA and international deals, that want to re-sell a public resource of the people of British Columbia that are affected by the BCUC decision. So if Naikun Wind isn’t planning on selling their power for export, then their project will go ahead.
That being said, it is highly unlikely that Haida Gwaii will get off diesel by tapping into wind, the most intermittent, least reliable source of power. The damage to their crab fisheries and bird migration probably isn’t worth it. Perhaps geothermal would make more sense a as long term plan.
On the larger scale, the barriers to electrifying public transit and other vehicles is not lack of power but lack of political will. The BC government has just invested billions in more highway infrastructure and it is still illegal to import electric cars into our country. (The fossil fuel ones are OK). Israel and Hawaii are both currently running pilot projects to replace ALL their fossil fuel cars to electric in the coming years. BC currently has some the cheapest clean electricity in the word. Surely if Israel and Hawaii have the electrical power to do this, so can we?