AECL is owned by the Federal government. NB Power owns the reactor, and is in turn owned by the Provincial government. So naturally, this issue has turned political. The New Brunswick government has written to the federal government requesting financial assistance with the refurbishment. After all, the Federal government owns AECL – there should be some responsibility here. Of course the New Brunswick government is equally culpable. After all, NB Power gave the contract to AECL that obviously allows cost overruns and time delays to be the responsibility of NB Power.

Meanwhile, the Federal government is reportedly trying to sell AECL, or parts of it. Good luck with that.

The Gentilly reactor in Quebec, was also scheduled for refurbishment. It is Hydro Quebec’s only reactor. Wisely, they have announced a delay in the start of this refurbishment, as they wish to see the outcome of the sale of AECL, as well as the outcome of the refurbishment in New Brunswick. They would be wise to reconsider the refurbishment altogether.

When will they figure out that nuclear always takes longer than expected, and always costs more than estimated?

New Brunswick has a great wind resource. That means its cost of wind energy is lower than elsewhere. But development of New Brunswick’s wind resource is stuck, and not moving forward due to the policy framework. It seems to me that the solution to LePreau is at hand. It is time it was used.

If the OPA had stuck with their original position, there would have been bankruptcies and layoffs. I heard of a company that 11 containers of materials on the way when the first announcement was made. No doubt their order backlog along with their cashflow would have evaporated. And they are one of many companies that would have had difficulty, with customer deposits lost, contracts broken, and inventory piling up unsold. The OPA has now reduced these problems.

Will the 64.2 cents work? My calculations with my assumptions give it a rate of return of a little over 7%. That is below the target rate the OPA has set of 11% return on equity. At a 7% rate of return, not much deployment can be expected. Of course my assumptions might be wrong. Maybe the maintenance will be less, or the cost less, or the production more, or the residual value higher. But maybe not. It is not an investment I would be rushing to make – the return is too small for the risk incurred.

Another key part of the announcement was that they are going to devise rules to deal with aggregators. These are firms that sign leases with landowners to install the groundmount solution. Creating definitions that work could be difficult. After all, if the rule says that only the account holder can receive the income, then even obtaining bank loans for purchase equipment could be difficult.

While most people will focus on the price, the announcement has an even more important item. The OPA will create an advisory panel, so they can perhaps avoid the type of mistake they just made.

My hat is off to the OPA. They have come up with a mostly workable compromise. Now they need to get to work on the next step – approving applications in a steady flow, so the industry can begin to install and grow.

Climate scientists are always reluctant to blame a single weather event on climate change. After all, we have had weather extremes before. Western media has always followed scientists lead on this, and has been reluctant to make the link. They are right I suppose. But some media has been very willing to discuss the views of the climate deniers, influenced by fossil money, as if it had as much weight as the views of the overwhelming majority of the world’s scientists. Why does the media follow the scientists advice about a single weather event, but report on climate science as if there is still debate? Odd.

When you eat bread made with the new higher wheat prices, you are paying for your coal fired electricity. Climate change has a cost, and it is real, and it will be even more in the future. There are 14 million in Pakistan’s flood areas who might just agree.

The same tactics were used to block action against tobacco for years. Publish reports that say tobacco isn’t addictive, or that it doesn’t cause cancer. Make it look like there is some scientific uncertainty. And action can be delayed for years. Some of the PR firms and people involved in the Big Tobacco cover up are now involved with the climate deniers.

The hullaballo over the leaked emails at the University of East Anglia are classic. The media reported that the scientific community had a great deal of doubt about the findings of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But as the EPA recently concluded, the email leaks uncovered only two errors in the 3000 page IPCC report – the amount of land below sea level in the Netherlands, and the speed of retreat of Himalayan glaciers. Neither of these errors cast even a shadow of doubt on the overall conclusion that climate change is occurring, and that it is caused by humans.

The story in Climate Cover Up is very compelling. Climate change is occuring. It is occuring faster than the scientists predicted. Scientist who study climate are very concerned. But much of the public information has been intentionally confused by those who have an financial interest in society taking no action. And so that is what we do. We take no action. Some may take personal action, but the actions by governments are woefully lacking.

I am struck by how similar the tactics and techniques of the climate deniers are to the anti wind groups. Like climate change, there are powerful economic interests threatened – fossil and nuclear generation. There is the internet echo chamber, where discredited reports echo for months or years. I have blogged about some of these. (Efficiency of Wind , Wind Reduces Carbon Dioxide Emissions, Misinformation on Property Taxes, Misinformation Meeting) among others. There are attacks on professional accreditation, or threatening lawsuits in order to try to buy silence. When a major reports from credible people like the Chief Medical Officer of Health are published, and mainstream media begins to downplay some of the health claims made by the anti wind group, then they target secondary media, where reporters are overworked, and have little time to research the validity of claims.

Someday, there may be a book on the tactics, misinformation, and manipulation of those against wind. It will be interesting reading indeed. Meanwhile, you would be well advised to inform yourself on Climate Cover Up. Read this book. It will make you a healthy skeptic.

Has the level of radiation inside the units been measured, and can it be? If water gets into the generator, is it possible that greater levels of radiation would be dispersed?

If a generator went down, and was down for awhile, what would be the impact, if any, on fish? The Great Lakes have a significant sport and commercial fishery, and most of us have had a fish dinner or two from Great Lakes fish. Would there be any danger of bio-accumulation of radioactivity that could affect our food consumption?

If a ship went down, or a crane toppled while loading, and the generator sank to the bottom, would it be safe for divers to attach cables or chains to recover it?

A Bruce spokesman said that if the load went down, they believed that the levels of radiation in the overall lakes would be immeasurable. What about if it went down in Lake St. Clair, a shallow, small lake? Or the Welland canal, or St. Lawrence locks? Would the radiation still be immeasurable?

Much of the water supply for residents of Ontario, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York State is drawn from the Great Lakes. Millions of people rely on this water. How close would the ship pass to water intakes? What would be the local radiation levels near these intakes if the ship were to go down nearby?

I applaud the efforts to recycle the materials, but am not quite sure why it has to go all the way to Sweden to be done. And my guess is that this is likely able to be done safely, with no risk for human health. But this is toxic material, and the care and protection of the water in the Great Lakes is vital. We should demand answers to at least these basic questions before approving this plan.

There is a meeting at the Public Health building in Owen Sound on July 27 at 5PM. Hopefully the answers to these questions will be made public there.

So, what are our options to replace old plants? The Ontario Power Authority (OPA) provides contracts to build new or refurbish old generating plants.

Natural gas is cheap today at $4.60/mmBTU, but as recently as 2 years ago it was over $15. It is a depleting resource. And while quite clean, it contributes to carbon emissions. The contracts to buy electricity from natural gas plants includes a basic price, a price per kWh to cover maintenance, and a price based on the price of natural gas. Electricity buyers (us) will pay more if the price of natural gas goes up. Or when there is a price on carbon.

Coal is dirty, releasing twice as much carbon as natural gas, and has serious health impacts. It is not an option.

The last nuclear refurbishments at the Bruce plant are underway. The OPA contracts pass on increases in the cost of fuel, as well as a portion of the already present cost overruns. The OPA was ready to buy new nuclear, but decided against it when price quotes came in at over 3 times what had been estimated.

Some waterpower resources are under development, including a new tunnel at Niagara Falls, and the Moose River. But additional resources are limited.

We have solar, which is costly, but does a nice job on summer peak demand.

And we have wind. Wind can be built faster than any of the other technologies except solar. The contracts offered are 13.5 cents/kWh, but increase at only 20% of the rate of increase in CPI over 20 years. There is no increase for cost overruns, and no increase for fuel price changes.

You can’t compare contracts for new power with the current price we pay. When you compare the 13.5 cents/kWh with other new technologies, wind is very competitive. It is cheaper than new nuclear. It is more money than gas today, but over the course of 20 years, provides a valuable diversification of supply. The wind contracts will be looking pretty good in 10 years, with even small changes in fuel prices, or in the cost of carbon.

The electricity price we pay is much less than the cost of new generation of any kind. This is because it is a blend of new expensive resources, with old low cost ones. You can’t produce power cheaper than Niagara Falls, a plant long since depreciated.

Wind, subsidized? Think again.

Some have criticized the tariffs for solar as too high. After all, we pay less than 10 cents/kWh to buy power from the grid – how can they pay someone 80 cents to generate? There are several good reasons to pay more. First, solar generated power under the MicroFIT is all used locally – it relieves the grid from strain, rather than contributing like large centralized generation plants do. This reduces grid losses. Second, it generates during the day, when demand and electricity prices are higher. Third, it produces especially well on long hot days in the summer, which matches the summer peaks quite well, and may well allow the system to avoid construction of peaking plants that are only required a few hours per year. So solar generated power is worth more that other power.

But the most important reason to invest in solar power is that it drives investment and growth in the solar industry. Learning curve theory says that as business expands, costs will be reduced. The estimate I have seen for solar is that every time the industry doubles, costs decrease by 20%. The industry has been growing by 40% per year for the last several years, so it doubles every 2 years. And costs have been coming down. Enormous amounts of capital have been attracted to the sector, providing funds for innovation in everything from cell efficiencies, to manufacturing methods and equipment, to inverters. And costs have come down a lot. If the cost of solar can continue to come down, we may end up in that wonderful place where we can have our energy from a non emitting and affordable source. Ten years from now, you may be teased by your neighbours for replacing a roof with asphalt shingles, and not installing solar instead.

So back to the reduction in the tariff. The OPA claims they are doing this because the 80.2 cent tariff is too rich – it allows people to earn an unreasonable profit when the price is 80.2 cents. My analysis doesn’t support this. It is true that there have been firms marketing ground mount systems and claiming high returns for the owner. Most of these claims are with tracker systems. But just because someone claims returns will be high doesn’t mean there aren’t risks, nor that the returns will indeed be high. Do the proforma number presented include maintenance cost on the tracker? After all, it has moving parts, and none of the trackers proposed have been in use in Ontario winters for the 20 year life of the contract. Do the proforma numbers include wind risk, and possible insurance issues? After all, trackers mount panels basically as a sail – will they stand up to winds safely? Again, none have been installed for 20 years in Ontario. Will inverters fail? Most people budget for a replacement every 10 years, but is that realistic? Do we have real life experience with today’s inverters for 20 years? The answer is no. So I believe the pro formas are very optomistic, and the returns less certain that the OPA seems to think. Only time will tell.

What will be the impact of the lower tariff? If my analysis is right, it is simple. There will be very few ground mount systems built. The principal of the FIT is pay enough to allow a reasonable return. I don’t think the proposed rate does. So this impact is serious enough. But there an even more important impact, and that is breach of faith.

The FIT program is designed to introduce certainty to the market. You file an application, wait for a maximum of 60 days (the service standard the OPA set for themselves), and you will be offered a conditional contract (conditional on the project being built). Once your facility is installed, you waive the condition, and you begin to receive payment. The program is set up with no limit – all applications will be approved. It is really more of a registration system than an application. Prices were to be reviewed every 2 years, with the next review due in 2011.

The program was overwhelmed. Applications submitted in February have still not been processed. As of last week, the program had received over 16,000 application, about 10,000 of which were ground mount.

I listened to the webinar and could hear distress in people’s voices. Some people trusted the OPA when they said there would be a 2 year price review. They trusted the OPA that contracts would be issued. But the OPA says they will make the 58.8 cent price apply to applications that are already submitted. While they are honouring the conditional offers they have processed, they are not honouring the spirit of the program that was so well received by the public. Because of the delays in processing applications, and because of the certainty of approval that the program seemed to offer, some people made deposits with installers, or even went so far as to install equipment. There are thousands of contracts that will need to be unwound. There will be money lost.

One man said, “I really feel I have been lead down the garden path on this.” One said that his Member of Provincial Parliament had received 100 calls so far. One mentioned that they had withdrawn funds from their retirement savings to install a system. “Why didn’t you tell us.” “We were tricked.” “They believed what you told them.” “By lowering the rate, it makes no sense whatsoever (to install a system)”. “You have lied to us. You have mislead us.”

As I listened to the webinar, I had nothing but empathy for the callers. A big part of me wanted to say “Welcome to the Ontario electricity sector.” You see, this is par for the course in this business where all that matters is government policy. Two weeks before I first produced power, Ernie Eves put in place a price cap on electricity. An election was coming – we better give the people cheap power (and we can all pay for it later). All of my prospective customers closed their doors. That was my first lesson. But since that time, the sideswipes are constant. Hydro One approves a 10 MW connection, then changes their mind, and only allows 6.6 MW. Hydro One quotes a price, and then delivers the work at 3 times the budgetted amount. The orange zone of death – an area that runs from Grand Bend to Orangeville to Meaford becomes off limits to all development for 5 years, because transmission is reserved the Bruce refurb. Samsung signs a deal allocating transmission ahead of all others, and in violation of the stated rules. Metering standards change, driving up costs. Approved points of connection are changed, resulting in the rework of contracts at considerable expense.

But there is a huge difference. This time, the policy change is hurting the citizenry, instead of just some developers. This time, the thousands of people who signed up are being hurt. They didn’t know that the electricity policy makers could treat them so shabbily. How could they? They are first timers.

There is an easy solution for the government and the OPA on this. And that is that they need to honour the 80.2 cent price on applications made prior to July 2 when they announced the price change. Would this be affordable? The answer is an unequivocal yes. 10,000 KW installed might produce 15 million kWh/year. The cost of this power at 80 cents is $120 million. The cost at 58.8 cents is $87 million. So this proposed price reduction saves the system $32 million. But this is an absolute highest possible number. The system will save from buying power elsewhere. The price is fixed for 20 years, so the savings in the system will increase. As the end of the 20 years, the projects will still generate power, trimming system peaks and reducing system losses at very low cost to the system. And the net cost to the ratepayer is less than 1 tenth of one cent per kWh. And that assumes that all the projects in the queue get built – but they won’t.

My prediction is that the government and the OPA will back down, and will allow the 80.2 cents for any projects who have submitted applications. The cost of doing that, and soon, is less than the cost of loss of confidence in the program.

A contingent of the anti wind crowd showed up from down south, and began their filibusters virtually from the start. Like they have done at other meetings, they really don’t want to hear another point of view. All they want to do is drown it out, challenge it, and do their utmost to disrupt the meeting. Gideon handled things as well as he could, but on several occasions, he asked the kibitzers to let him finish, and then he would welcome questions. Tony, the Chair of BPEG, and just about the nicest person on the planet, had to intervene a few times to keep order. There is no doubt the anti wind crowd lost a few points with BPEG members with their rudeness.

Gideon’s presentation, when not interrupted, was clear. Coal generated electricity is a clear and present danger. Studies CAPE has reviewed indicate that the burning of coal in Ontario’s power plants result in 100,000 sicknesses per year, and 250 deaths. That is a pretty high cost. Further, CAPE has determined that the health effects of nuclear are also significant. In particular, they are concerned with leukemia in children who live nearby nuclear plants. Also, they are concerned with the fossil emissions from nuclear power – the whole supply chain from mining, to processing, to transporting of fuel in addition to the fossil fuels required to build the plants, operate them, and store the waste, is not a small number. They point out that far from being a low emission source of electricity, nuclear power is actually quite high in emissions, albeit, much lower than coal.

So CAPE considers the reports of sickness caused by wind turbines in the context of the alternative sources of power. Physicians are of course sensitive to any reports of sickness in people. They do not dismiss the concerns that have been reported by some people who live around wind farms. But they are aware that all of the studies on sickness of people around wind turbines are antecdotal in nature, rather than scientific. And they are aware that the symptoms described – insomnia, tinnitus (ringing in the ears), stress etc. are problems that exist in the general population, whether or not they live near wind farms. From what was presented, CAPE considers the dangers of both coal and nuclear to human health, to far exceed the health effects from wind turbines.

As the presentation was underway, with the constant challenges from the anti wind people, I was wondering if Gideon would talk about the antidote to wind turbine syndrome. It is called money. Because virtually none of the people who report sickness from wind turbine earn an income from them. And those who do, including some of my landowners, report being healthy, and happy. Physicians could not contemplate that. But I can.

When the presentation was done, and the questions arrived, it became really interesting. The anti wind crowd wanted to dominate, leaving little time for the more polite BPEG members. They asked about studies, and credentials. One of them wanted to claim that that the deaths, and health effects of coal were just a “theory”, as if that would discredit it. Especially telling was the comment by one of the visitors that he had worked in coal generation for 15 year, and nuclear for 30, and he didn’t have any problems. Exactly who is it in the anti wind community? I think it is becoming clear.

There was a question by a BPEG member, who serves on the Source Water Protection committee, about tritium releases from Candu reactors into Lake Huron, the source of water for many of those in our area. Gideon acknowleged that this is an issue, and said they had reviewed some literature on this. A BPEG member asked about the role of conservation, and was told it was critical.

But the question of the night came from Megan. She suggested to the meeting that she was probably the youngest there (she was right on that) – she just completed the first year of university. And she said that it was her generation that would have to deal with the problems created by us, and that wind appeared to be one of the best of the alternatives. She received sustained applause.

At the social gathering after the meeting, I had conversations with many people, especially BPEG members. I am a bit of a lightning rod on wind in our area, so I think I drew people in. I had many positive comments about the presentation from members. Some members are concerned with a large project on the Peninsula, due to aesthetics. Others are in favour. Now at least that is the issue – we can have that conversation. The other issues raised by the anti wind crowd whether health, birds, earthworms, or noise are simply non issues. Some members have a clearer idea of the tactics and makeup of the anti wind crowd – a lot of them seem to be from the incumbent sources of power like nuclear and fossil. But the issue of human health has clearly been addressed – you need to look at wind in a wider context.

It isn’t wind or nothing. It is wind or something else. Coal. Nuclear. Wind. You pick it. I think BPEG members left the meeting with a better sense of that.

If wind turbines last for 20 years, and kill 2 birds per year, you could build 25 million wind turbines and have the same impact. 25 million wind turbines would be about 50 million MW of capacity, and would produce 131,000 million MWh/year, or 131,000 TWh per year. (50,000,000 MW X 30% capacity factor X 365 days X 24 hours) North American demand for power is 4000 TWh per year. So that many turbines can produce about 45 times the total power consumption of the entire continent for 20 years. Put it another way – for 45 times less bird deaths than one oil spill, the continent can have its entire electricity supplied by wind for 20 years.

The BP well looks like it is spewing about 100,000 barrels/day – enough to supply less than 1/2 of 1% of North America’s oil demand.

When we look at our energy sources, we must always remember that all sources have an impact on the environment. And we should choose those that minimize the impact wherever possible.

The book is easy to read, and accessible even to those new to the concepts presented. By far the book’s greatest strength is its illustrations. Each technology has wonderful photographs, that helps the reader comprehend concepts. The book is full of useful information, but is also a coffee table quality picture book that can enlighten even someone with a casual interest.

I have spent a great deal of time in the detail policy area, and so I can’t help but wonder if the author is underestimating the complexity of effecting societal change at the detailed level, so that these techologies can be widely deployed. But underestimating the difficulty of change doesn’t change the central message – which is that the solutions to climate change are at hand – we just need to get on with deploying them.

In the author’s words, “Please be part of the solution. Your kids and grandkids will want to know where you stood, because it (climate change) will dominate their personal and professional lives. Understand why we need to kick the fossil fuel habit. See that there are solutions, but know that they’re difficult to achieve and require effort. Talk to your friends and neighbours, and co-workers. Because we aren’t going to solve this problem if we don’t all believe it is necessary – and possible.”

Well done, Mr. Rand.