Environmentalists face many challenges in selling their vision of a coal-free, nuclear-free Ontario electricity grid -- the subject of tonight's program. But perhaps the biggest challenge they face is convincing the public that such a vision is "doable", as in practical and cost-effective.
In fact, that's likely the biggest challenge environmentalists face when trying to sell their vision of a green future in general.
Hence the World Wildlife Fund Canada's new Living Planet City, a website that visualizes what a truly environmentally-friendly city would look like. "It's clean, it's efficient -- and it's doable," the site's welcome message says. "Today."
"The idea for the Living Planet City goes back to when I was trying to explain one of our technical reports on renewable energy to one of my friends," writes Keith Stewart, Director of Climate Change for the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). "I was pointing to one of our many graphs when they stopped me and asked me to paint them a picture of what this would look like in their neighbourhood."
"So that is what we are trying to do – give people an idea of what their community would look and feel like once we make the switch to a green energy system. And it taps the power of an on-line environment, which allows you to start very high-level and delve deeper into the bits that interest you, while showing how it all fits together. If a picture is worth a thousand words, then we’ve got a lot of pictures, each of them backed up by a lot of words and more pictures, many of which are actually videos."
The site definitely has a lot of illustrations on how new green technologies could work. There's also plenty of information on real-world examples where these technologies are already being used.
I interviewed Keith Stewart via e-mail about Living Planet City. Here's the text of our exchange:
Q: Living Planet City cites a number of real-world examples where cities are employing green strategies. But no one city is doing all of them. How realistic is it to expect that any city can adopt the all of the practices that you think are integral to a truly green city?
A: Right now, cities are acting as laboratories or incubators for various climate solutions, and we have to share what it is being learned in these experiments as we prepare to roll them out at a much broader scale.
Ultimately, we are going to see different mixes of energy technologies emerging in different parts of the world, capitalizing on local resources. Obviously you’re not going to see tidal power generators in Edmonton, but the prairies do have lots of wind. But there is also no silver bullet – it will be a mix of energy sources being used much more intelligently and efficiently.
Q: How do you transpose this carefully-organized model city onto a real world city, with all the prexisting infrastructure and the usual budget constraints?
A: This is going to be messy, and exciting. We can’t start from scratch so the clean energy economy is inevitably going to be layered on top of the old fossil and uranium-based energy system. I think the key will be getting governments to set the broad rules and priorities – to set out clearly where we are going -- and then leave lots of room for innovation by other actors in terms of how we get there.
One example would be to have a rule that says that buildings have to produce x per cent of the energy they use by such-and-such a date on the path to net-zero buildings, and let the clever architects and engineers figure out how to meet that by a combination of improving energy efficiency (so the building uses less) and tapping into available renewable energy sources.
Q: You looked at the City of Toronto to try and understand the barriers cities face in implementing the kind of solutions you lay out. What did you find out?
A: We picked Toronto because they have a real problem getting enough power into the downtown area, and the technologies we are highlighting in the Living Planet City could solve this very expensive problem for them. We also focused on Toronto because it has a city council and local utility that ‘get’ green energy solutions and want to do this. And when we went out and interviewed all the major players and decision-makers in the sector it was clear that there is a real appetite for going towards this kind of a green energy future.
The challenge lies in turning this desire into reality. There are some economic barriers, but many of these are being addressed through the province’s Green Energy Act (although not for combined heat and power plants). There are some engineering constraints on putting power back into our archaic grid, but these are fix-able. And there are some policy barriers that have to be addressed.
But when it came right down to it, most people felt that we didn’t have a coherent vision and a strategy for achieving it that would guide all the little changes that have to be made. Which is why we put forward a proposed Roadmap for getting there based on our interviews, and are now going back out to talk to people to see if they will support this.
Q: Your model emphasizes the importance of careful planning and coordination. Cities often seem inherently chaotic. How much will cities have to improve their planning and coordination to truly be sustainable?
A: The municipal level is great for experimenting, but we don’t want them to be directing everything. We need the senior levels of governments to put in place the basic rules and pricing systems, municipal governments to develop community energy plans, and the private sector and social sector to provide a lot of the ingenuity and elbow grease.
Q: Are there any cities in the world today that come closest to the vision laid out in the Living Planet City?
A: There are bits and pieces all over the place, and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities is doing a good job trying to share the Canadian experiences. But there is no single place that has pulled it all together.
So what do you think of Living Planet City? Does it convince you that a truly environmentally-friendly future is "doable"? Or does it leave you skeptical on how a green future can be achieved economically and practically?
Those many windmills we have now along Lake Erie are powering the U.S.... not Canada...most of the Tar Oil is traveling through pipelines to more refineries right on the Great Lakes, thereby adding more risk of water pollution, again to provide the U.S. with fuel.
Who is going to supply Canada with energy? NAFTA still applies here.
posted by change it on 15 September 2009 at 8:25 PM
Please do a show about Hydro potential in the north of Ontario and review the decision not to build Beck 3 at Niagara. Please also include the possible use of wind to pump water to upper elevation stored for demand on calm days. and the possibility of purchase agreements with Quebec and Manitoba.
Thanks for a great show tonight.(Sept. 15)
posted by ekim nossirb on 15 September 2009 at 11:45 PM
Change it:
I'll try to get you some answers on your geothermal question if I can. Stay tuned.
-Daniel Kitts, The Agenda
posted by Daniel Kitts
on 16 September 2009 at 11:25 AM
Ekim:
Thanks for your suggestion on Hydro in the north. We'll keep it in mind.
-Daniel Kitts, The Agenda
posted by Daniel Kitts
on 16 September 2009 at 11:26 AM
The lack of combined heat & power seems to be a big hole here. There really is a lot of potential. Disclosure: I'm associated with Recycled Energy Development, an American company that works on this issue. And RED's chairman, Tom Casten, has been involved in clean energy issues in Toronto. But the reason I'm involved is the massive opportunity. We should be doing much more to make energy efficiently -- helping both the economy and the planet.
posted by Miggsathon on 16 September 2009 at 1:20 PM
Keith Stewart never seems to understand the constraints we must deal with when trying to intergrate renewable energies. Large scale renewable are inefficient and cost prohibitive. They cannot respond to the needs of a modern society. The largest Biogas generation technology available right now only provides 10 MW of energy. (Ontario needs over 20,000 MW). Wind turbines and solar need quick responsive backup generation to counter their intermittency and unreliable power therefore will never replace coal or Natural Gas. (Hydro and Nuclear are part of baseload therefore cannot respond to the intermittency) He also doesn't indicate to the public how much public funding is needed. Renewables will be receiving under the proposed FIT program 3 times the present electricity rates without including all of the transmission upgrades needed to allow renewables onto to the grid. This is coming out of each and every tax payers pocket. This is absolutely ludicrous. To top things off are the restrictions the GEA will impose upon the democratic process in reviewing these kinds of developments. We as citizens will have NO say. Wake up Ontario, this is a scam and WWF are shills to the renewable industry (especially wind). Have a look at the insights about the wind scam by an environmental scientist from the U.K. http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2009/09/15/environmental-scientist-exposes-wind-farm-scam/ " Proponents of wind power repeatedly stress that opposition is based primarily on the impact on landscape, but justify this by the need to “tackle climate change” through reduction of carbon dioxide emission. As this book shows, the saving of CO2 proposed by government’s own 2010 target for electricity generated by renewables is a minute 0.04% of the global total and, by 2020 this will not have grown in any way comparably with the huge increases of emission from the developing world."
posted by Rural Grubby on 16 September 2009 at 1:21 PM
The problem with green technologies (especially wind ) is that people jump on the eco-bandwagon and support technologies that aren't efficent, cheap or proven. Denmark (20% wind capacity) the most cited and heavily celebrated energy system by environmentalists has yet to shut down a natural gas plant or see a reduction in Co2 emissions. Why? because wind technology must be improved before it makes a substantial impact> Also lacking from the debate on renewables is the clarification for people outside the industry between output and capacity. Its great that some wind farms have the say, 200 Mw of capacity. The actual output (or energy they produce) is of actual importance and by liberal estimates wind produces at 40% its capacity. So 60% of the time its prodcing nothing. IS this really a viable option?
posted by fahey on 17 September 2009 at 11:27 AM
Why are so many people blind to the problems caused by continued growth and building development? Many people are going to great lengths to "go green" and conserve — but these efforts are counterbalanced as phenomenal numbers of new subdivisions continue to be built.
Every new home uses more electricity and natural gas, no matter how energy efficient it is. Considering the number of new subdivisions that have sprung up in recent years, it is no wonder that utility bills have tripled over the last decade and people are now being forced to conserve electricity. We pay more and more to use less and less.
Now people are threatened with even higher hydro rates that will further double or triple their energy bills - just to generate votes for politicians and to line the pockets of greedy business executives who seize the opportunity to attach the word "Green" to deceive people into mindlessly forking out large amounts of money.
It's about time we get to the root of the problem and stop focusing on expensive "band-aid" solutions which will not sustain the growing population - no matter what claims are promised. This planet only has limited resources - and as growth continues, these limited resources (ie. wood, oil, natural gas, etc.) are used up to build subdivisions and expensive "energy-efficient" buildings - we will only hasten the depletion of the Earths' limited resources.
Natural Gas is expected to peak in 2025. Oil has already peaked. By 2025, the number of new subdivisions adding to the burden on various energy supplies will have multiplied. The population of people using energy will have grown exponentially as well.
Many have been laid off, and some won't find another job. How can they afford their ever-increasing energy and property tax bills? Increasing numbers of citizens had their hydro cut off last winter because they could no longer afford to pay!
posted by Prudent on 18 September 2009 at 10:01 AM
Christopher Horner, author of "Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed"
posted by Prudent on 18 September 2009 at 10:06 AM
Lore: Geothermal I would like to know if there are any incentives to go geothermal as they do in Denmark. Having looked into it, it is cost-prohibitive currently. Why doesn't the government invest in this technology?
The answer is staring you in the face within your question. Geothermal is cost prohibitive, and will be even more so once any government bureaucracy gets involved ! We taxpayers will end up owing even more. However such realism is not politically correct. Read the posts by Rural Grubby and Fahey. The biggest block to a rational energy policy is that we do not pay the true all encompassing cost. Subsidies and "investment" by governments of all stripes merely obfuscate fundamental limitations of energy physics and engineering. Conserve and don't drive monster SUVs.
posted by DieterH on 18 September 2009 at 11:49 AM
Jose is off his rocker if he thinks Ontario can reach - let alone surpass - those numbers without nuclear. I think his solar panel is effecting his water. Grubby, Fahey and DieterH are spot on with there arguments. What's typical of most bandwagon green advocates is that they fail to realize the numbers and what is actually required to run the worlds sixth largest electric grid. They get mesmerized by capacity figures of wind and don't realize the actual output. Jose claims it's more than realistic for Ontario to replicate what is being done in Denmark. Not a chance. As was mentioned above, Denmark=zero coal plant closures from their wind industry investments. No proof of C02 and emission reductions. And the fact that Denmark is a tiny country that doesn't even come close to having the manufacturing and industrial impact our province does. As Tom mentioned in the show, this isn't something that will be solved in the next year, we need something that will give us some breathing room while we get off coal and fossil fuels and gives us time to develop and research other renewable options. And to do that we need lobbyists and Climate change fear mongering to stop, this whole notion that the sky is falling is forcing governments to move to quickly on unreliable tech that is ultimately only going to increase our rates and hurt the tax payers. Great debate, loved this show. Keep it up. For more on the fallacies of the wind industry read this
posted by Aizen on 24 September 2009 at 3:05 PM
I was very interested in the Sept. 15th show, and it's focus on Denmark and its energy consumption. I'm a Canadian who lived in Copenhagen for 4 years from 2005-2009.
As far as support, I agree that there are many lessons to be learned. First and foremost, however, I don't think that we can underestimate the impact of the cost of electricity in Denmark. If you ask the average Dane, they probably won't think that it impacts anything since they've been paying that much all of their lives. However the foreign community, particularly those used to cheap North American electricity, will explain that it does impact their behaviour.
There are some further details that are worth clarifying:
1) Denmark may be 50% of Ontario in terms of population, but in terms of land area Ontario is about 918K sq. km and Denmark is only 43K sq km. This has an impact on population density, moving people from one location to another, short transmission distances etc.
2) Denmark has mild summers and mild winters (when compared to Ontario). Most workplaces are not air conditioned in the summertime. On the few days of the year when it is really hot, the Danes adapt to this culturally by not forcing businesspeople to wear suits, ties etc. (i.e. clothes that don't make sense when it's 30 degrees outside).
3) Denmark is consistently windy. Furthermore, most major cities are either on the water, or very close in Canadian terms (i.e. <100km). That allows for wind turbines to be placed offshore more easily and again allow for easy transmission to centers of population.
These are not meant as excuses as to why Ontario will not be able to reproduce the Danish model. However without the political will to create specialized bike lanes (along highways too), allowing people to dress for the weather rather than a company's specific business culture etc., then it will be difficult to see how we can create the "culture" and "lifestyle" that has allowed Denmark to be so successful.
posted by SMD30 on 28 September 2009 at 11:03 AM
*You must have a FREE TVO account in order to comment on posts
Don't have an account?
*You must have a FREE TVO account in order to comment on posts
Get a behind the scenes take on each night's show from the producers of The Agenda.
Erica Balch (is a producer on The Agenda with Steve Paikin. Follow Erica on Twitter.)
Judy Brake (is a senior producer for The Agenda with Steve Paikin.)
Mark Brosens (is an associate producer on The Agenda with Steve Paikin. Follow Mark on Twitter.)
Hilary Clark (is a producer for The Agenda with Steve Paikin. Follow Hilary on Twitter.)
Stacey Dunseath (is a producer for The Agenda with Steve Paikin. )
Alan Echenberg (is The Agenda with Steve Paikin's Ottawa bureau chief. Follow Alan on Twitter.)
David Erwin (is the packaging director for The Agenda with Steve Paikin. Follow David on Twitter.)
Sandra Gionas (is a producer for The Agenda with Steve Paikin. Follow Sandra on Twitter.)
Daniel Kitts (is a producer for The Agenda with Steve Paikin. Follow Daniel on Twitter.)
Melissa Martin (is a producer for The Agenda with Steve Paikin. Follow Melissa on Twitter.)
Meredith Martin (is a producer for The Agenda with Steve Paikin. Follow Meredith on Twitter.)
Mike Miner (is a producer on The Agenda with Steve Paikin. Follow Mike on Twitter.)
Stavros Rougas (is an associate producer on The Agenda with Steve Paikin. Follow Stavros on Twitter.)
Yasmina Sekkat (is an associate producer for The Agenda with Steve Paikin. Follow Yasmina on Twitter.)
Wodek Szemberg (is a senior producer on The Agenda with Steve Paikin. Follow Wodek on Twitter.)
Allison Buchan-Terrell (is an associate producer on The Agenda with Steve Paikin. Follow Allison on Twitter.)
The Agenda with Steve Paikin Allan Gregg in Conversation Big Ideas
Think Again
Subscribe to all Blogs
Geothermal
I would like to know if there are any incentives to go geothermal as they do in Denmark. Having looked into it, it is cost-prohibitive currently. Why doesn't the government invest in this technology?
posted by lore on 15 September 2009 at 8:21 PM