Cloudy Germany unlikely hotspot for solar power

By Erik Kirschbaum

BONN, Germany (Reuters) - It rains year round in Germany. Clouds cover the skies for about two-thirds of all daylight hours. Yet the country has managed to become the world's leading solar power generator.

Even though millions of Germans flee their damp, dark homeland for holidays in the Mediterranean sun, 55 percent of the world's photovoltaic (PV) power is generated on solar panels set up between the Baltic Sea and the Black Forest.

So far just 3 percent of Germany's electricity comes from the sun, but the government wants to raise the share of renewables to 27 percent of all energy by 2020 from 13 percent.

It is a thriving industry with booming exports that has created tens of thousands of jobs in recent years, posting growth rates that surpassed the optimistic forecasts made by the fathers of a pioneering 2000 renewable energy law.

This law, known by the acronym EEG, has helped this cloudy, rainy country on the northern rim of central Europe become a solar giant.

"The EEG was the single most important vehicle to boost the solar energy market," Frank Asbeck, chairman of SolarWorld AG, told Reuters. The law, which offers cash incentives to people introducing renewable energy sources, was designed to help fight climate change and reduce dependency on fossil fuels.

"There has also been an enormous interest for solar power from the public in general," added Asbeck, who in 1988 started his Bonn-based company making and marketing PV products. Its 1,350 staff have doubled in number in the last two years.

"Germans have a fondness for inventing and developing technologies -- especially when it might lead to big export rates. Helping fight climate change is a bonus," said Asbeck, who plans to nearly double the staff again within two year

Power utilities race for renewable energy sources

Puget Sound Business Journal (Seattle) - July 27, 2007

by Deirdre Gregg

Staff Writer

Faced with a voter-imposed mandate, some of the Puget Sound region's large power utilities are on the hunt for new sources of renewable energy.

The demand, spurred in part by Initiative 937, is prompting new power projects to spring up. It's still unclear whether the shift will drive up overall energy costs at utilities, because renewable prices are coming down, and utilities have a number of years to meet the mandates.

Solar panels tested at ASU lab

Corinne Purtill
The Arizona Republic

The Photovoltaic Testing Laboratory at the Arizona State University Polytechnic Campus is a rough place for solar panels.

Machines fire simulated hail at the panels to make sure they won't crack when exposed to the elements on a rooftop. Cement bricks are stacked upon them. Technicians batter them with iron-filled bags to ensure that a panel won't shatter and cause injury if a child were to run into them.

If a panel survives the tests put to it, the lab awards the manufacturer with the certification they need to put them on the market.

And lately, business is booming.

Demand for solar panels has increased dramatically worldwide. Faced with rising energy costs and growing concerns about global warming, countries are turning to renewable energy sources such as solar to supply their power needs.

Most of the panels tested at the lab in Mesa are sold in Germany. The German government has an aggressive solar promotion program that allows residents to sell unused electricity generated on their home solar systems back to the utilities for a profit.

Mani Tamizh-Mani, the lab's director, says he believes Arizona should be doing as much to promote solar as Germany, which gets 40 percent less sunshine than Arizona.

"In this state, solar is the best" renewable energy option, Tamizh-Mani said. "It is highly predictable, especially in Arizona. And it is plenty."

The ASU lab is one of three photovoltaic testing labs in the world and the only one in the United States. The other two are in Germany and Italy.

The lab tests solar panels - also called photovoltaics because the sun creates an electric charge when it hits the panel - for safety, electrical and mechanical performance.

In 2006, the Arizona Corporation Commission, which regulates utilities, ruled that Arizona utilities must get 15 percent of their power from renewable energy resources by 2025.

At least 4.5 percent of the state's energy must come from individual projects like rooftop solar panels.

Solar's high price tag has kept the technology from really taking off in Arizona. The largest home solar systems can cost residents as much as $30,000, even after rebates from the utility and state and federal tax credits.

But solar advocates say the panels will become more attractive as costs drop and traditional energy sources become scarcer.

"When we have the first few blackouts, people will be interested in solar," said Paul Symanski, marketing manager at the lab.

Study: Renewable Energy Not Green

By Sara Goudarzi, Special to LiveScience

Renewable energy could wreck the environment, according to a study that examined how much land it would take to generate the renewable resources that would make a difference in the global energy system.

Building enough wind farms, damming adequate number of rivers and growing sufficient biomass to produce ample kilowatts to make a difference in meeting global energy demands would involve a huge invasion of nature, according to Jesse Ausubel, a researcher at the Rockefeller University in New York.

Ausubel came to this conclusion by calculating the amount of energy that each renewable source can produce in terms of area of land disturbed.

“We looked at the different major alternatives for renewable energies and we measured [the power output] for each of them and how much land it will rape,” Ausubel told LiveScience.

Land grab for energy

The results, published in the current issue of International Journal of Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology, paint a grim picture for the environment. For example, according to the study, in order to meet the 2005 electricity demand for the United States, an area the size of Texas would need to be covered with wind structures running round the clock to extract, store and transport the energy.

New York City would require the entire area of Connecticut to become a wind farm to fully power all its electrical equipment and gadgets.

You can convert every kilowatt generated directly into land area disturbed, Ausubel said. “The biomass or wind will produce one or two watts per square meter. So every watt or kilowatt you want for light bulbs in your house can be translated into your hand reaching out into nature taking land.”

Small dent in landmass

Other scientists are not on board with Ausubel’s analysis and say that his use of energy density—the amount of energy produced per each area of land—as the only metric may not be the correct way to calculate the impact of energy from renewable resources on the environment.

“In general, I would say his use of energy density just does not capture the entire scope of issues and capabilities for all the different resources,” said John A. Turner, a principal scientist at the U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, who was not involved in the study.

Turner explains that if the entire United States were to be powered by solar cells with 10 percent efficiency, an area about 10,000 square miles would have to be covered by solar panels in a sunny place such as Arizona or Nevada.

“Now there’s 3.7 million square miles of area for the continental U.S.” Turner told LiveScience. “This represents a very, very tiny area. And that’s just one technology.”

“If you look at how much land area we’ve covered with roads, it’s more than double that. So yeah, it’s a large area, 100 miles by 100 miles, if you pack it into one thing, but if you scatter it across the country and compare it to all the other things we’ve already covered, it’s not an egregious area.”

Double use of land

Ausubel’s analysis concludes that other renewable sources such as solar power and biomass are “un-green”. According to his findings, to obtain power for a large proportion of the country from biomass would require 965 square miles of prime Iowa land. A photovoltaic solar cell plant would require painting black about 58 square miles, plus land for storage and retrieval to equal a 1,000-megawatt electric nuclear plant, a more environmentally friendly choice, Ausubel wrote.

However, new land doesn’t have to be put into use just for a solar plant. Some scientists say already existing infrastructures could be doubled up for use to cover such an area.

“We could do with just rooftops of buildings and homes, land area we’ve already covered,” Turner said. “We could meet 25 percent of our annual electrical demand by just putting solar panels on already existing rooftops of homes and businesses.”

“Similarly, wind farms use up a lot of land area but they only really take up 5 percent of the land they cover,” he explained. “The rest of it can be used for farming so it doesn’t really impact the land area that much.”

Going nuclear

Ausubel thinks that a better alternative to renewable energy resources would be nuclear power, which would leave behind far less waste than other alternatives

“There are three legs to the stool of environmentally sound energy policy—one is improved efficiency, second is increased reliance on natural gas with carbon capture and sequestration and the third is nuclear power,” he explained.

“Nuclear power has the proliferation issues, which are serious but the environmental issues are small. With nuclear energy the issue is to contain radioactivity, which has been successfully done.”

Turner agrees that nuclear power leaves a smaller carbon footprint, but he thinks that the waste issue associated with this technology is very serious.

“It’s unconscionable to dismiss the issue of nuclear waste," Turner said, “because you have to store that waste for hundreds of thousands of years and nuclear wastes are particularly damaging to the environment and have social impacts also.”

Similarly, Gregory A. Keoleian, co-Director for the Center for Sustainable Systems at the University of Michigan, thinks more in-depth analyses are needed before dismissing renewables and considering nuclear power as a viable option.

“I think the characterizations made that ‘renewables are not green’ and ‘nuclear is green’ sound provocative, but they do not accurately represent these technologies with respect to a comprehensive set of sustainability criteria and analysis,” Keoleian told LiveScience. “The treatment of renewable technologies [in this study] is shallow and the coverage of the nuclear fuel cycle is incomplete."

To capture the entire scope of issues and capabilities for all the different resources, scientists believe there need to be more studies and discussions.

“We have a finite amount of time, a finite amount of money and a finite amount of energy, and we need to be very careful about the choices we make as we build this new energy infrastructure,” Turner said. “I’d like to see something that will last for millennia and certainly solar, wind and biomass will last as long as the sun shines. “

Energy research can be trial and error

By Mike Meyers, Star Tribune

Last update: July 21, 2007 – 3:47 PM

Thomas Edison discovered 2,000 ways not to make a light bulb before he found illumination. Xcel Energy Inc. is learning that ideas about renewable energy are subject to the same trial and error.

The Minneapolis-based utility soon will dole out $23 million for alternative-energy projects that could bear fruit -- or lay eggs. Since 1999, the innovation program -- created by the Legislature -- has awarded nearly $53 million, and gotten a decidedly mixed basket of results.

A fruit: A wind turbine in Pipestone that delivers the local school district enough money to pay for a teaching position. An egg: An experiment that found removing tars and bits of pollution from gases is harder than it looks.

"Sometimes you just have to try something and find that doesn't work, so I'll take a different path," said Debra Paulson, Xcel's manager of regulatory administration.

So far, nine of 48 projects have been canceled or withdrawn. Some may take five to 10 years to show clear results.

A seven-member panel is sifting through more than 100 requests for money in the latest round of grants. The panel includes representatives of Xcel, consumers, ratepayers, industry and residents of Prairie Island. The money that funds the program is collected from Xcel ratepayers.

Nuclear waste led to program

Its genesis came in 1994 during a debate over what to do about spent fuel at Xcel's Prairie Island nuclear plant near Red Wing. The Legislature wanted to spur research and development in renewable energy to reduce the state's dependence on nuclear power and other conventional sources of energy.

While Xcel has yet to make public the details of pending applications, past grants have financed a variety of renewable energy projects.

WindLogics, a St. Paul company that tracks and forecasts wind patterns for utilities and other clients, was granted nearly $1 million in 2003 to design a computer model -- and install monitoring equipment -- to more accurately assess which way the wind is blowing, as well as how fast and for how long.

As a result, utilities can now orchestrate which generators run -- or are kept idle -- with better warning of how much electricity to expect from the wind turbines that dot Minnesota.

"To the extent they can get a better forecast, they can then arrange the schedule of their other operating plants, whether coal or gas or nuclear," said Mark Ahlstrom, WindLogics chief executive.

WindLogics is publishing results of the research, which is still underway, in an effort to see that the technology spreads beyond Minnesota's borders.

"I think we're producing a working system and technical advancements that are advancing the state of the art," Ahlstrom said.

Research and production

Half the grants disbursed by Xcel go to research projects and the rest go to projects that produce renewable energy.

A $100,000 grant helped the Science Museum of Minnesota build a solar-powered "zero energy building" -- one that produces at least as much energy as it uses -- as part of its outdoor science park in St. Paul.

A $753,000 check gave the Pipestone Area School District most of the cash for a 750-kilowatt wind turbine. The district gets about $45,000 a year by selling the power to operators of a nearby electrical grid.

"It means we can keep a teacher," said Jim Lentz, school superintendent.

Sometimes bright ideas end in clear setbacks.

The program approved a $639,000 grant for studying whether a filter, using centrifugal force, could be devised for removing tars and other impurities from gases obtained from "biomass" -- a broad category that covers everything from waste rotting in fields to garbage decaying in landfills. The gases can be used to power electrical generators.

But a report on the project found plenty of problems, from leaking gases to particles remaining stuck in filters to a lower-than-expected capacity with the filtering equipment. The experiments were conducted by Hopkins-based MagStar Technologies and Community Power Corp. in Littleton, Colo.

They concluded the process "will not be a practical means of cleaning producer gas streams in the near future."

Another disappointment

A $739,000 grant to Roseville-based Sebesta Blomberg, an energy management and design firm, also ended in disappointment.

The company found that the technology to extract gas from distiller's grains and byproducts at an ethanol plant could feed an electrical generator to sustain the power demands of an ethanol plant.

But it also found a problem: The grains and byproducts had a higher value if sold as animal feed and the technology to extract gas was costly.

The return "wasn't worth the investment to produce your own power," said John Carlson, a principal at Sebesta Blomberg. But, in his view, the study was worth the effort. Some of the technology has proven useful in later company projects, he said.

Many of the results, according to Xcel's Paulson, will end up in peer-reviewed technical journals, to be read by researchers across the nation and around the globe.

The latest proposed projects must survive a gantlet of reviews by technical experts and budget specialists. By October, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission will have the final say on what projects go forward.

"What we all eventually get out of this is technology that will be environmentally friendly, creative and useful," Paulson said.

And, in some cases, tips on ideas that don't work.

Ethanol is a solid step in state's energy future

By Mark DeSaulnier and Bob Balgenorth

GUEST COMMENTARY

WE'RE FEELING the financial squeeze at the pump. Oil politics are a major root cause of turmoil throughout the world. We face relentless questions on how fast our planet is warming and what we should do about it as a nation and as individuals. In all areas of our state, thousands search unsuccessfully for meaningful jobs.

Low-carbon renewable fuels, such as ethanol, that are produced right here in California, can be a significant tool to help solve all these problems.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) recently took an important step toward encouraging increased use of low-carbon fuels at their June meeting in Fresno.

Gas prices have climbed to well more than $3.20 a gallon for two fundamental reasons -- the limited supply of gasoline on the Earth and the premium we pay because of the instability in the oil producing regions of the world.

In other words, crude oil is expensive because we are running out of cheap supply and all of the uncertainty in the Middle East also creates a significant "instability premium," which impacts America in the form of a hidden tax added to the price we pay at the pump.

Ethanol can be an intermediate step to solving this problem.

Today, ethanol is approximately 65 cents per gallon cheaper than gasoline in California.

Therefore, increasing its use is an immediate action the state can take today to decrease gasoline prices for consumers.

By incorporating as much as a 10 percent blend of ethanol into gasoline, we have the opportunity to increase the supply of gasoline by 4 percent, which will significantly reduce the cost of gas.

In addition, as a result of CARB's action, renewable fuel use in California will increase by more than 600 million gallons, and California is set to become the world's single largest renewable fuels market.

Just as it's been so often before in emerging technologies, California is home to the leading innovators in the renewable fuel revolution.

Venture capital firms are investing billions of dollars on the present and future in fuels. And biotech firms are transforming the California economy by working to diversify the state's transportation fuel base to include renewable fuels.

These dynamic companies and California's institutions of higher education employ increasing amounts of brainpower to build a brighter future for the state.

A brand-new sector of the California economy has passed the tipping point and has taken hold. New ethanol production facilities are being built, providing good, high-paying jobs with health benefits and a secure retirement for the highly-skilled labor force needed to build and maintain these complex plants.

Thousands of families and the local communities where these new plants are located are experiencing the positive economic benefits of this new renewable fuel industry.

This healthy market dynamic is good for everyone. Although some domestic auto companies have increased the amount of fuel flex-capable cars to the market, it's essential that others follow and that the pace is accelerated.

Through market adoption and government support, a majority of motorists could have real choice and a true competition of fuels would exist.

This would decrease prices of all fuels and stimulate a healthy competition -- a real win for all Californians.

And what about the warming Earth? Ethanol can provide a way to reduce carbon emissions from vehicles today, and in due time, with all the private and public research that is going on, ethanol in California will be made from additional sources such as agricultural residues or fast growing energy crops that include Eucalyptus and other types of plants.

Existing ethanol facilities will incorporate other measures to further reduce carbon emissions such as powering the plants with manure or biomass, which would make them virtually 100 percent renewable.

Although it's not the answer alone to solving global warming and climbing gas prices, ethanol is an immediate concrete step we can take to deal with many of the issues that threaten to overwhelm us if we don't act quickly.

As Californians, we need to do everything we can to take full advantage of the opportunity to increase the use of low carbon renewable fuels for the health of our environment, economy and consumers' pocketbooks -- today and for future Californians.

Predicting the impact of suburbia

Monday, 23 July 2007 Deakin University

Deakin University researchers have developed a quick and easy method to predict the environmental impact of Australian buildings.

Using data gathered from 30 buildings in Melbourne, including hospitals, offices, schools and houses, the researchers with Deakin’s Built Environment Research Group discovered for the first time a strong relationship between building costs and energy performance. From this information they have been able to develop a quick and reliable way to calculate energy consumption by simply knowing a building’s capital cost budget.

“Our research has shown that lower capital cost leads to lower energy use. Therefore, cost effective construction leads to better environmental performance— a fact that is not well understood,” said Professor Craig Langston, Director of the Built Environment Research Group with Deakin’s School of Architecture and Building.

Professor Langston said that their results were vital given the pressure all buildings placed on the environment.

“The built environment demands 40 to 50 per cent of global energy, consumes 40 per cent of non-renewable resources, generates 40 per cent of landfill waste and uses 30 per cent of fresh water reserves. Obviously this is not sustainable, particularly as buildings increase in number and size,” he said.

“With Australia having the world’s highest rate of energy and water use per capita, it is timely for these issues to be aired.”

During the three-year study, the researchers found that estimates of a building’s embodied energy (the energy used to manufacture a building’s materials) were directly tied to its capital cost budget. This enabled them to produce an equation or ‘calculator’ based on a building’s budget to predict energy performance that could then be used to inform more energy efficient building design.

Professor Langston said that embodied energy was generally not considered in building design and construction by industry practitioners.

“There is a lack of professional knowledge about embodied energy, with few practitioners able to calculate it, which has led to its absence in routine design decision-making,” he said.

“However, embodied energy represents about 40 per cent of total energy needs for a typical building over 30 years (when the embodied energy of operational maintenance is included). With increasing energy efficient initiatives, greater use of prefabrication and transportation, and renovation to ensure market appeal, embodied energy is becoming more significant than ever.”

The researchers also found that the same principles could be applied to determine a building’s operational energy (heating, cooling, lighting etc) over the next 100 years.

“What we have been able to produce is a model that not only reduces time but also eliminates the complexity of energy, particularly embodied energy, calculations from a few weeks of expert effort to a few minutes by a relative novice,” Professor Langston said.

“By putting this useful tool into the hands of building practitioners, the widespread use of energy analysis can be routinely incorporated in the early design stages of new building projects to ensure an appropriate and sustainable deployment of resources.”

Colorado Renewable Energy Mapping Task Force Members Named

in News Departments > People
by NAW Staff on Wednesday 18 July 2007

Gov. Bill Ritter, D-Colo., has appointed seven Coloradans to the Renewable Resource Generation Development Area Task Force. Eight other members of the task force have been designated or appointed by Joan Fitz-Gerald, Senate president, and Andrew Romanoff, House speaker, and three members were designated by the governor's energy office, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and Colorado Counties Inc.

The task force – established by the passage of Senate Bill 91 in late May – was created to produce maps that detail all electricity generation and transmission lines in Colorado in order to determine the most appropriate areas for renewable energy development. The maps are due for delivery to the governor by the end of the year.

Task force appointees by Ritter include Dan McClendon, general manager of Delta-Montrose Electrical Association; Frank Prager, vice president of environmental policy for Excel Energy; Rick Gilliam, director of Western states policy with SunEdison; Ronald Lehr, a former Public Utility Commission chair and current wind energy consultant; George Smart, chief of engineering for the Bureau of Reclamation’s Colorado Big Thompson project; Tony Frank, director of renewable energy development for the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union; and John Bleem, a division manager for the Platte River Power Authority.Appointees by Fitz-Gerald and Romanoff include Craig Cox, Interwest Energy Alliance; Mac McLennan, Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association; John Nielsen, Western Resource Advocates; Ron Larson, Colorado Renewable Energy Society; Barbara Walker, Independent Bankers of Colorado; and Sam Mamet, executive director of Colorado Municipal League.Glenn Gibson, Larimer County commissioner, was designated by Colorado Counties Inc.; David Hurlbut, with NREL, was designated by the director of NREL; and Morey Wolfson, with the governor's energy office, was designated by the director of the governor's energy office.

Suddenly, solar's hot

Energy prices have the sun looking good

By Shelley Shelton
Arizona Daily Star
Tucson, Arizona Published: 07.15.2007


In the late 1970s, a nationwide energy crisis had people looking for ways to become less dependent on fossil fuels. Many focused their attention on solar energy as a renewable resource.
But energy prices moderated, tax credits for solar systems evaporated, and solar's future dimmed.

Fast-forward to 2007: Energy prices are again soaring and remain volatile, and with the perceived threat of global warming, people are once again wondering what they can do to become less dependent on non-renewable fossil fuels.

"My thought process was, if I can produce enough energy on my roof to meet my needs, I want to produce something tangible toward energy independence," said Chuck Dunn, 51, who is installing what will be Tucson's largest residential array of solar panels on a home he's building in the Foothills.

Interest in solar energy seems to be everywhere, from government to commerce to consumers, with new manufacturing and new jobs on Tucson's horizon.
District 8 Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, a Demo-crat, has said she wants Southern Arizona to become the "Solar-con Valley" of the United States. She has introduced legislation to promote training a solar-industry work force and to set up an initiative for states to receive money for advancing commercial applications of solar technology.

Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano has called our state the "Saudi Arabia of solar energy within the United States," and she recently signed legislation to prevent homeowners' associations from restricting the use of solar systems.

15% renewable by 2025
Political attention aside, solar is also gaining steam at the Arizona Corporation Commission, which recently decreed that all utilities must generate 15 percent of the state's energy from renewable resources by 2025. At that time, about 5 percent of the energy must come from solar cells.

That's good news for consumers, who can take advantage of tax credits and rebate programs as utilities scramble to meet that edict. New, possibly better, incentives might be on the way as well.

Tucson Electric Power Co. and other Arizona utilities — including Arizona Public Service Co., the Salt River Project, and Trico and Sulphur Springs Valley electric cooperatives — offer rebates for solar installations. TEP has two residential plans and one non-residential plan in its solar energy program, called SunShare, each worth thousands of dollars (see accompanying information).

With regulators boosting renewables, solar incentives for homeowners could get richer.
TEP plans to file a new Renewable Energy Standard plan in the next few months, said Joe Salkowski, a TEP spokesman. Though the plan isn't finished, it will include an incentive package, he said.

"It might be in people's interest to wait and see what the new program is going to offer. It may be different," Salkowski said.
Then there are tax credits.

The federal government offers a 30 percent credit up to $2,000 for residential consumers who install approved solar electric devices on their homes, with no maximum for commercial users. The same deal is available for people who install solar hot water.

The state of Arizona provides a 25 percent credit for solar devices — with electricity and hot water lumped together — up to $1,000 in addition to the federal government's credit.
Could get half back
With all the tax credits and rebates available, it's possible for an average consumer to get back about half the cost of solar equipment, said Katharine Kent, owner of The Solar Store, which markets and installs solar-energy products.

TEP customer Dunn said he would not have taken on the solar project for his new home without the utility's help with the costs.

Another customer, Dale Keyes, has been on the SunShare plan for a little more than a year. He has a two-kilowatt alternating-current system on the roof of his Midtown home.

Keyes got a substantial discount on the panels thanks to TEP, he said, but taking that discount into consideration and adding another $3,000 in tax credits from the state and the feds, he still spent $8,000.

By staying connected to the TEP grid, Keyes and Dunn both said, the houses still have electricity when the sun goes behind a cloud or at night when there is no sun.

The homes are "net metered," meaning they feed excess energy into the TEP system — in Keyes' case, the meter actually runs backwards when this happens — and then essentially buy the energy back at a discount. And it eliminates the need for batteries to store the energy for when the sun isn't out.

"It has performed above and beyond my expectations," Keyes said. "We've had several people stop and ask us questions" about the system.

Even as consumer and political interest in solar grows, the local solar manufacturing industry is expanding.

Germany-based Solon AG — a maker of solar modules and photovoltaic systems — opened its first U.S. manufacturing plant under the name Solon America in Tucson early this month. Global Solar Energy, a former venture of TEP parent UniSource Energy Corp. now partly owned by Solon, also recently announced expansion plans.

And New York-based Prism Solar Technologies Inc. — which manufactures a new kind of photovoltaic module that uses holographic technology to filter and focus the sun's rays for maximum effect— opened a research and development facility here in June.
Still hurdles ahead
Despite the flurry of activity, solar still faces some hurdles.
"There's tremendous potential in the sun but we are not there yet," said Mike Gleason, chairman of the Arizona Corporation Commission.

Gleason was the sole commissioner who voted against the 2025 mandate, on grounds the technology wasn't mature enough. "When the Wright brothers had their flight at Kitty Hawk, they didn't try to fly the Atlantic with that plane," he said.

The companies that have moved here say more can be done in the way of incentives to bring solar-oriented businesses here, and the rules and breaks for consumers need to be simplified so they're easier to understand.

"Something that's difficult for the customer takes more time to increase the market," said Olaf Koester, president and chief executive officer of Solon America.

Tax credits based on how much renewable energy a company manufactures would help, said Glenn Rosenberg, Prism Solar's chief technology officer in Tucson. And good access to transportation for shipping is important too, he said.

Incentives are what will bring people in, said Larry Kazmerski, director of the national center for photovoltaics at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Kazmerski said the timing is good for Arizona to position itself as a solar capital.
"Arizona really is considered tops in the point of view of technology expertise," he said. "You have a tradition but you also have a future."
Getting started:
For more information on utility solar programs in Southern Arizona:
• TEP/UniSource Energy Services SunShare
The SunShare program is offered by Tucson Electric Power Co. and UniSource Energy Services (a sister company that serves Santa Cruz County): http://www.green watts.com and follow the links to SunShare for the appropriate company. For information by phone, call 745-3100 or toll-free 1-866-253-3690.
• Trico Electric Cooperative SunWatts program: http://www.trico.coop/sunwatts_ information.html; 744-2944.
• Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative SunWatts: http://www.ssvec.org/programs /energySunWatts.php; 1-520-384-5515.
Other local solar links:
• Tucson Solar Alliance: http://www.solarinstitute.org/ tucson_solar_alliance
• Arizona Solar Center: http://www.azsolarcenter.com
• The Solar Store: http://www. solarstore.com
• Expert Solar Systems: http://www.expertsolar.com
• GeoInnovation: http://www.geoinnovation.com
HOAs and solar
Earlier this month, Gov. Janet Napolitano signed Senate Bill 1254 into law. The bill closed loopholes in previous legislation to prevent homeowner associations from restricting the use of solar panels.

The bill says that despite any provision in community documents, associations can't prohibit the installation or use of a solar-energy device. Associations may adopt "reasonable rules" regarding the placement of the device as long as those rules don't prevent the installation, impair functioning or adversely affect the cost or efficiency of the device.

It's always a good idea to check your HOA's rules, which normally require homeowners to submit designs before adding any improvements.
Comparing costs
Nationwide industry costs for power generation per kilowatt hour, by source:
Coal — 2 to 4 cents.
Natural gas — 5 to 11 cents, varies with the fluctuation in cost of natural gas.
Nuclear — 2 cents, not including upfront costs and disposal costs.
Wind (unsubsidized) — 5 to 11 cents.
Solar — 18 to 80 cents.

Figures provided by TEP from company research. Figures do not represent TEP's costs.

Solar hot water

If the cost of solar photovoltaics seems daunting, you can get your feet wet by starting out with a solar water-heating unit.

The federal government provides a tax credit of up to $2,000 for solar water heaters, separate from the credit given for photovoltaic installations. The maximum $1,000 credit offered by Arizona can be applied to several kinds of systems, including photovoltaics, skylights, pools and water heaters.

Costs can range from $2,000 to $5,000 installed, and payback time for most heaters happens within the first 10 years, according to the Arizona Solar Center.

Less climate-change hot air

By PatrickBlennerhassett
Jul 13 2007
Dangerous Mind

Hypocrisy reared its ugly head this past Saturday as I sat there watching the Live Earth concerts that flooded my TV screen. Massive shows featuring nearly every imaginable act took place all over the world to support Al Gore’s campaign against global warming.

The whole time I kept thinking “How much gas and electricity are they burning to bring these concerts to the public?”

Back home an Idling Control Bylaw had just been passed by Victoria, and the Oak Bay Climate Change Task Force were being busybodies holding meetings on how to ban plastic bags. And once again, I couldn’t help but wonder “How many of the task force drive their cars to meetings, and how much paper are they using in all of these reports?”

We’re missing the point with all these half-baked ideas that will somehow lead us to some environmentally sound utopia of the future. Climate change isn’t being caused by too many plastic bags or ignorant car owners idling their cars for hours on end. No, global warming is caused by four things – fossil fuels, natural gas, coal and petroleum.

Since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution in the late 18th century, man has relied solely on these four non-renewable resources for power. Not only are greenhouse gases caused by them, they’re also fuelling wars on almost every continent. Dr. Andrew Weaver, a well known UVic climate scientist, said doing the little things like recycling, turning off unused lights and trying to conserve gas are still necessary, but really aren’t combatting either of the two elephants in the room.

“In the grand scheme of things they really don’t do a lot at all,” said Weaver, also a lead author of the international Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “But they are part of the bigger issue with solving climate change. And the two sides to that are technology and behaviour. Putting in better light bulbs isn’t going to have much of an effect. But it’s part of a process where down the road, people will be more open to the alternative measures we need to take when the technology is ready.”

Those alternative measures? Eradicating the internal combustion engine, permanently. The transportation sector needs to undergo a fundamental shift from automobiles that run on gasoline, said Weaver.

“We’ve got to go 90 per cent below the rate we’re at right now by 2050,” he added. “And as the technology allows us to do that we need to have the behavioural changes in place well before that.”

Dr. Lawrence Pitt, research co-ordinator with the UVic’s Integrated Energy Systems agrees with Weaver, but adds “getting rid of the internal combustion engine at this stage is premature in my opinion.”

The other elephant in the room might be easier to tame.

“The production of electricity and heat for our homes, businesses and factories still dominates the energy landscape world-wide,” he said.

Right now China is burning so much coal, powering its thriving economy, it truly does make an Idling Control Bylaw seem like putting a band-aid on a bullet wound. Pitt said until developing nations, and first world countries replace traditional forms of energy, global warming isn’t going anywhere.
“I think it’s more likely that notable strides in emission reductions will come first in the area of electricity production,” said Pitt. “Generating low-emission electricity from hydrocarbons such as coal and natural gas by capturing and geologically sequestering the CO2 is becoming more credible. Significant investments in billion-dollar scale projects are on the drawing table in the U.S., Europe and elsewhere. Over the next 25 years, this could be the way we build new generating plants, in addition to nuclear and some renewable energy plants such as wind and hydro which are also low-emission technologies.”

Pitt and Weaver point out an interesting fact. Non-renewable resources like hydroelectricity are much better, necessary alternatives, but have their drawbacks.

“Right now in Alberta they have numerous wind farms that are producing energy, but that’s only when it’s windy,” Weaver said. “You can’t just shut off a coal burning plant when it’s windy and switch to wind power, it doesn’t work like that.”

Pitt’s team at IESVic is at the forefront of getting society onto the sustainable energy path. Hydrogen technology, fuel cell science, ways to power our world with vastly renewable resources. And Pitt added we’re still decades from making those necessary leaps and bounds.
“Cost of hydrogen technologies are high and fuel cells are expensive and don’t last long – yet,” he said. “But this is true of any new energy technology. And the signs are good that there will be steady progress in improving on both fronts.”

He explained that carbon-capture technologies produce hydroden as a by-product, leaving hydrogen as a fuel for power generation.

“Maybe when this happens, some of the growing amount of hydrogen can be made available for transportation services just about the time, in say 15 years or so, when fuel cells may be come more wide spread for transportation.”

We should consider ourselves lucky in B.C. About 50 per cent of the province’s electricity is produced by major hydroelectric generating stations on the Columbia and Peace rivers. But we’re an anomaly, blessed with a rich environment. The rest of the world doesn’t have these benefits, and needs other alternatives.

Politicians are the people we’re looking to for leadership. Al Gore, the City of Victoria, Oak Bay’s Climate Change Task Force. It’s a great way to give peace of mind to the blissfully ignorant as they drive their SUVs to public meetings, sipping on Starbuck’s lattes, taking about banning the terribly villainous plastic bag.

But it’s all missing the point. Researches and scientists have the answers, and until we start listening to them, we’re going to be driving down this hypocritical highway for a very long time.

Pursuit of biofuels bring new global security risks

The US and Brazil are among a raft of countries looking to ramp up their biofuel* production amid concerns over the long-term supply of traditional energy sources, bringing new concerns over global security.

Jane’s Intelligence Review reports that while biofuels offer many advantages for producing countries, the potential long-term environmental degradation and increased competition for land and water resources means it cannot be viewed as a risk-free alternative to non-renewable fuels.

Anna Gilmour, an independent analyst for Jane’s Intelligence Review says greater use of land for biofuel production will inevitably mean a reduction in land for food crops at a time when the rising global population is putting increased demand on food and water supplies.

“While there is clearly a growing demand for the conversion to biofuel production it could also expose governments to rising social unrest, as food prices rise and poorer members of society reap few benefits from the new ‘wondercrop’, “says Ms Gilmour.

“Apart from the social unrest and job losses, the expansion of this industry has the potential to increase internal conflict between governments and non-state armed groups in countries such as Colombia, Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines."

Efforts to clear new land for biofuel production will be strongly opposed by non-state armed groups who may view it as a challenge for territorial control, resulting in action and subsequently more unrest.

Jane’s Intelligence Review reports that Columbia is an example where the potential security risks are more complicated, as large tracts of supposedly unused land are actually used for illegal cultivation of coca plants, from which cocaine is extracted. With most of Colombia’s non-state armed groups heavily dependent on the lucrative cocaine trade, efforts to repurpose this land towards biofuel production would be strongly opposed on several fronts.

“The Colombian government lacks the military strength to provide adequate protection to workers responsible for clearing coca and in convincing farmers to give up the lucrative coca crop. Also, the likely retaliation from insurgents will pose a long-term challenge to the development of Colombia’s biofuel industry,” adds Gilmour.

Jane’s Intelligence Review says that while environmental concerns pose long-term risk in the form of climate change, the most pressing risk will come in the form of heightened competition for land, food and water resources.

Currently Brazil and the US are responsible for some 70 per cent of global ethanol production.

Research focuses on renewable energy

By Ben Sutherly
Staff Writer
Sunday, July 15, 2007

Fuel cell research under way in Ohio might someday save farmers and food processors headaches in disposing of waste.

It might even help them make money by turning that waste into renewable energy — specifically electricity. And it could help dairy farmers cut odors from cow manure and improve relations with neighbors.

The Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center in Wooster received $1.5 million in state Third Frontier funding in 2005 for research into converting food-processing leftovers into renewable energy. And OARDC is receiving an unspecified amount of U.S. Department of Energy funding to find similar ways to convert manure into energy.

"You could come up with a very significant part of the energy needs of Ohio," said OARDC researcher Floyd Schanbacher.

Key to that research is a fuel cell developed by Cleveland-based Technology Management, Inc., Schanbacher said.

He said he's pleased so far with the fuel cell's reliability. While many fuel cells are finicky and must use highly refined hydrogen, Schanbacher said the TMI fuel cell can use fuels with sulfur contaminants — contaminants often present in food-processing and livestock waste.
"We think it's got a good prospect for success," he said.

Bobby Moser, dean of Ohio State University's college of food, agricultural and environmental sciences, said the technology could reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil.

TMI has about 20 full-time employees and has been developing fuel cell technology since 1990, said Benson Lee, TMI's president.

The fuel cell, which runs on hydrogen extracted from methane given off by animal waste or other decomposing organic matter, is relatively compact. Measuring 16 inches by 16 inches and 32 inches high, it weighs about 100 pounds, Lee said.

If enough fuel-cell systems are commercially produced, Lee anticipates the price per fuel-cell system could drop below $500 — making the systems affordable for dairy farmers and food processors, whose waste is expensive to dispose of.

"Small scale is where Ohio could be a world leader in the use of this technology," he said.

But significant hurdles remain. TMI's fuel cell technology so far has been tested only in laboratories. Lee hopes to raise $2 million to $3 million to engineer the fuel cells so they can run outside the lab for a long time. He said field testing won't begin for up to three years.

And there currently isn't a market for the fuel cells. Ohio's regulatory landscape traditionally hasn't provided much incentive for farmers and food processors to generate renewable energy, though the Public Utility Commission of Ohio is working to change that. As a result, Ohio lags in renewable-energy projects, Schanbacher said.

TMI has received more than $22 million in federal and state grants and contracts, according to Lee.

Coal-fired Huntly earns big black mark

5:00AM Monday July 16, 2007
By Wayne Thompson

Greenpeace ranks Genesis Energy the worst contributor to climate change.
In its updated Clean Energy Guide, Greenpeace said the company earned the ranking because it owns the Huntly coal-fired power station, the largest single source of carbon dioxide emissions.

Greenpeace climate campaigner Susannah Bailey said yesterday Genesis Energy plans involved fossil fuels, for example, the 240-megawatt Rodney gas-fired station for which it will seek consent this year.

Contact had taken second ranking because it owned gas power stations which contributed to climate change.

Last year's guide placed Mighty River Power and its retail brand Mercury Energy as having policies and practices that were the least mindful of climate change.

"Mighty River and Mercury Energy have improved their ranking because they dropped their plans to recommission the Marsden B Power Station in Northland on coal," said Ms Bailey.

"Part of the reason they did so was because of consumer pressure from the 2005 Clean Energy Guide."

This year's guide also takes into account each company's energy efficiency programme and whether they encourage households to generate their own renewable electricity.
Ms Bailey said Meridian Energy remained the best supplier of clean electricity, because all its electricity was generated from renewable sources and it had made a commitment to use only renewable sources.

She said it had been encouraging to notice an overall shift in the attitudes of the electricity industry.

"New Zealanders' concern about climate change has reached an all- time high," she said. "People want to see the Government and industry taking action but they also want to take action themselves."

Genesis Energy spokesman Richard Gordon said the company was trying to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by moving into renewable energy projects - wind farms and a small hydro station at Tongariro.

It opened the EP3 gas-turbine station at Huntly last month, using technology that lowered emissions.

"We don't disagree with Greenpeace on the need to reduce emissions, we just disagree on how fast we can get Huntly coal-fired generation out of the market," said Mr Gordon.

Huntly was the country's biggest power station and its output could be gradually displaced in the next 13 to 15 years, with efficient gas generation and renewable energy sources.

Contact Energy spokesman Jonathan Hill said the company was disappointed with its ranking in view of its "industry leadership position" on climate change.

It had a $2 billion investment programme in renewable energy generation. It had also put on hold the Otahuhu C gas-fired plant in order to focus on renewable generation.

Weekend Review: Solar Energy, Saved By the Sun

By Robin Schidlowski Jul 8, 2007

Solar Field: Represents the latest in solar technology। Artists rendition by Sandia National Laboratories

Is the solar energy revolution upon us? Solar Energy: Saved By the Sun, a PBS NOVA show first aired in Spring 2007, asks that question and presents a battery of solar related arguments। While light on science, the program provides a solid, basic understanding of the solar energy debate and a picture of where it is heading। After waiting 30 years for solar to be the “next big thing”, the recent spotlight on global warming has raised the country's collective concern about how our energy is produced. In the U.S. we use natural gas, nuclear, hydrogen, and coal power, and only 1% of all energy is created through sun or wind energy. Now, that balance is shifting as we are withdrawing our reliance on fossil fuels and other non-renewable sources of power.Solar is a $38 billion year industry and is growing rapidly. The film introduces viewers to several scenarios that show promise for its implementation at multiple scales, from residential and commercial to municipal and federal. It stops short of telling us what to do, instead providing enough information for a newbie to have a conversation about solar technology as well as a platform for further investigation. The DVD can be purchased online, or you can explore the website that accompanies the film free of charge. Some ideas from the film and reasons to think seriously about solar power:


Kramer Junction is a solar power generating plant that uses hyperbolic mirrors to heat oil, that boils water, to create steam, which turns turbines, to create energy for 150,000 homes in Los Angeles। Locating solar “farms” outside of cities, on rooftops, and in creative spaces, can equate to cities powered in large part by the sun.

Germany has created a system of solar subsidies and guarantees the purchase of consumer energy। The result is that 30% of the country is powered by the sun. Getting solar in the national politics has led to a healthy solar manufacturing industry and the debunking of the idea that solar isn't feasible if it isn't always sunny. It isn't, especially not in Germany, but the sun still provides a significant amount of the national energy and this equates to a huge savings in fossil fuel usage and carbon emissions.

Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute is convinced that solar can serve his energy needs, and then some। In his Denver home he has built a solarium that yields bananas, papaya, passion fruit, loquats, grapes, and tomatoes. He captures sunlight, heat, and hot water, creating an indoor tropical micro-climate. He is not trying to defeat nature he is letting solar design work for him.

Technology such as solar film, electron conducting solar paint, and multi-junction solar panels will equate to higher efficiency and less expensive sun energy. As our collective conscience shifts toward less polluting lifestyles, our governments are beginning to subsidize the development of solar technology, just as they have with nuclear energy for half a century. Take advantage of the subsidies in your state, and take part in the solar revolution.

Alternate fuel sources

Solar energy best for future

Our society will slowly shift from the non-renewable energy sources of oil and gas for heating and cooling to a renewable energy source — solar.

Nuclear is burdensome on future generations. Wind and water are geographically specific. Coal and oil are non-renewable and a major source of the greenhouse effect. Gas, which is cleaner burning, nevertheless is finite and also a contributor to the greenhouse effect. I have two proposals.

First is to use half the roof-area of apartment buildings for solar collection to turn that source into electricity. Housing complexes for senior citizens and the disabled will be much more prevalent in the future due to the "baby boom" generation. Funding for heating and cooling costs is partially picked up by government subsidies. The initial cost of the proposal could be partially funded by the government, private organizations the energy industry, private contributing individuals and corporations.

My second proposal is more to the amenability of these apartment complexes, specifically, the planting area around the ground floor apartments. This requires clean working gutters.

For older folks and the disabled, the propagation of plants is both healthy physically, mentally and socially. What is needed is available planting area, decent soil, plant material, fertilizer and water.

All can be supplied by residents except water. Rainwater is the best. Use half these massive roof areas for rainwater collection. Each building would have a collection point. They already have gutter systems and as of June 2007, they need new roofs.

Think of our older generation. Gardens have traditionally been areas for contemplation, reflection and peace. The development of a small environment propagates pride and increases the property value.

This might seem like a frivolous suggestion, it has a real value for residents and visitors alike. We must begin to think of the future.

CUBA: Sugarcane - Source of Renewable Energy, But Not Ethanol

By Patricia Grogg

HAVANA, Jun 1 (IPS) - Like other Latin American countries, Cuba is focusing on the development of renewable energy sources. But unlike Brazil, a leader in biofuels, this Caribbean island nation has ruled out the production of ethanol fuel based on sugarcane, because of President Fidel Castro's opposition to using food crops to produce biofuel on a large scale.


Cuban researchers continue to see the sugar industry, for decades the motor of the Cuban economy, as a strategic sector capable of producing food products for human and animal consumption, generating electricity from bagasse -- the fibrous by-product of sugar extraction from cane stalks -- or producing alcohol and even pharmaceutical products.

When the sugarcane industry was at its height, producing harvests of up to eight million tons, it generated around 10 percent of the electrical power produced in Cuba. But with the drop in production seen over the past decade, the proportion of electricity that it produces shrank from 10 to 5.6 percent, between 1990 and 2002.

In 2002, the sugar industry underwent a major restructuring that involved the closure of half of the country's 156 sugar mills, in order to bring production levels into line with international prices, which had dropped at that time to around six cents a pound. "The first source of renewable energy remains sugarcane biomass, and if the strategy for the future is to produce energy in a decentralised manner and with diversified sources, this should be one of them," Cuban expert Julio Torres commented to IPS.

A large part of the mills that survived the restructuring and remain active upgraded their installations in order to generate their own energy supplies, although they do not yet produce a surplus to sell to the national grid. "Investment must be made in technological changes to make the electricity generating industry more efficient," said Torres. "The problem does not lie in the number of mills that are working, but in the quality of the mills." "Sugarcane biomass could be the start of the road towards sustainable energy production for our country," he added.

The expert said there are plans to increase sugarcane production, but argued that researchers "must begin studying the best way to deal with the problems posed by climate change, which has a major impact on agriculture." This year, unseasonal rains hindered the sugar harvest, which ended in mid-May with an output no higher than last year's poor showing: 1.2 million tons, according to preliminary estimates.

The cost per kilowatt of burning biomass is four times lower than that of burning fossil fuels. In addition, biomass is a cleaner source of energy that does not release into the environment heavy metals and other toxic substances. Although the residues produced by the alcohol industry do pollute the environment, there is technology that allows such waste to be used in the production of biogas, which would replace the fuel oil used in the distillery itself. Biogas is produced by the anaerobic digestion or fermentation of organic matter. It is a low-cost, renewable biofuel that can be used for cooking or generating electricity.

At the same time, the process generates a subproduct that can be used as fertiliser or as feed for fish or birds. "Biogas has several uses, but the most important aspect is its impact on reducing the pollution produced by the country's sugar and coffee factories," Luis Bérriz, president of Cubasolar, the Society for the Promotion of Renewable Energy Sources and Respect for the Environment, told IPS. In his view, what is needed is "greater development of this source of alternative energy in the country," which already uses hydroelectricity and solar power and is also interested in harnessing wind power.

A year ago, sugar industry officials announced during an international conference in Havana an ambitious programme to expand the alcohol industry, including the modernisation of 11 distilleries and the installation of seven new ones, which would make use of the waste products by means of different solutions.

The project was aimed at increasing the production of alcohol, including dehydrated alcohol to be mixed with gasoline on the domestic market and for export, Luis Gálvez, director of the governmental Cuban Institute of Research on Sugarcane Derivatives, told IPS at the time. But the industry has ruled out its plans to produce ethanol fuel -- an issue on which the convalescent Castro has launched a heated debate, in which he focuses on the danger posed to food security by using food crops to produce biofuels on a large scale.

In a congress on renewable energy last week, Conrado Moreno, a member of Cuba's Academy of Sciences, said the upgrading of 11 distilleries would allow an increase in alcohol output -- mainly for use in producing rum and pharmaceutical products -- to 150 million litres a year. "That ethanol will not go towards the production of fuel," said Moreno, who added that "There has never been large-scale production in Cuba" of ethanol for fuel.

The Cuban government signed an agreement with Venezuela in February for the construction of 11 plants to produce ethanol and the expansion of sugarcane cultivation towards that end in that South American country.

As Alí Rodríguez, Venezuela's ambassador to Cuba, later explained, the fuel will cover already existing demand in Venezuela, by providing the 15 percent ethanol in gasoline exports and by replacing the leaded gasoline that is no longer produced in the country.

Wind company invests in Welsh solar venture

Jun 30 2007
by Sion Barry, Western Mail


ONE of the world’s leading wind energy businesses has invested in a South Wales solar electricity systems venture.
Taffs Well solar photovoltaic specialist, Energy Equipment Testing Service, has received a significant equity investment from Renewable Energy Systems Group.
EETS, through its subsidiary, PV Systems, is a major manufacturer and supplier of building-integrated commercial and domestic solar electricity systems in the UK, with more than 800 installations to date.
It has a client list that includes blue chip multinationals, government, construction and domestic clients.
RES’s parent company, Sir Robert McAlpine, is a leading player in the construction industry and keen to meet the demand for low-carbon energy solutions from its clients.
Story continues
ADVERTISEMENT

Bruce Cross, managing director and founder of PV Systems, said, “Solar electricity has the potential to provide power for every new building. The UK industry is predicted to follow the same expansion as in Germany, where it has grown one hundredfold in five years.

“Having been in the industry for 25 years, we have the R&D capability, the manufacturing capacity, and the design and installation experience to provide the solutions required for this fast growing market. We look forward to working with RES and expanding our capacity.”

Gerallt Jones of law firm Hugh James said, “We are delighted to have advised EETS on this important deal, which will add the considerable experience and contacts of RES and Sir Robert McAlpine to the expertise built up by EETS over the ten years since the company was spun out from Cardiff University.”

Does wind power blow?

Alternate energy sources like wind and solar can't possibly meet our needs. But is nuclear energy the answer?

The answer to Canada's energy needs might be found blowing in the wind or in controversial nuclear technology -- or a combination of both. Sun Media's Lorrie Goldstein, a proponent of nuclear energy, and national comment editor Paul Berton, who says Canada is lagging in development of alternate sources of power, recently engaged in an energetic debate.

GOLDSTEIN: It's nice to pretend that we'll be able to meet Canada's future energy needs via windmills, solar power and the like, but it's a pipe dream. Surely, you understand that?
BERTON: Only one thing is for sure: we cannot meet Canada's future energy needs with traditional methods alone.

GOLDSTEIN: What's certain is that if we try to rely too much on wind and solar power in the name of going green, we'll go broke in the dark. Renewables are absurdly expensive compared to fossil fuels. Plus, the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine, so there are major concerns about availability and reliability as well.

BERTON: Last time I checked, fossil fuels are a limited resource, and they're dirty. Sun and wind are renewable, and clean. Compared to the various unforeseen, hidden or ignored costs of burning fossil fuels and creating nuclear energy, the price of wind and solar energy will look like a bargain in the future. Meanwhile, when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing, the energy created can reduce our dependence on other sources.

GOLDSTEIN: Wait a minute. Are you serious about stopping global warming or not? If you are, then you should not be dismissing nuclear power, the only realistic form of energy we have that does not emit greenhouse gases. My authorities? Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace and James Lovelock the grandfather of the world-wide green movement, who criticizes today's "Greens" for raising the alarm about climate change and then hypocritically campaigning against the peaceful use of nuclear power.

BERTON: I'm not dismissing nuclear power. I'm saying if we do more to encourage wind and solar energy we won't need as much of it.

GOLDSTEIN: Fair point, but the Greens can't have it both ways. They can't on the one hand argue we are facing catastrophic, irreversible climate change within the next few decades and then dismiss, as they do, nuclear power. If we rely solely or excessively on wind, solar and tidal power along with biomass and geothermal, which are all decades away from practical, mainstream use, it will end very badly. I'm not against developing renewable power. I'm saying we have to be realistic about what it can do.

BERTON: I'm not sure the term excessive can ever apply here. Canada has a big wind resource, and we're not using it. We're way behind the Europeans, the United States, India and China in terms of the energy we produce.

GOLDSTEIN: Canada's biggest wind resource is the House of Commons, whenever the braying jackasses in it start yelling at each other about global warming. And China? You seriously think China has any lessons to teach Canada about how not to pollute? China is building 562 new coal-fired energy plants over the next few years, the dirtiest form of fossil fuel energy there is. The only thing windmills in China will do is blow the smog around.

BERTON: Oh please. Spare me the theatrics. It's up to us to lead the way and show others how it can be done. Even if it costs more money now, it will save money down the road. It's just simple common sense.

GOLDSTEIN: Theatrics? You mean like Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth? The reality is that throwing money indiscriminately at renewable energy resources -- especially wind power by the way, since the serious investment after nuclear should go into solar (read Lovelock) is a huge mistake. Canadian politicians, of all parties, are trying to fool the public into thinking the "boutique" little renewable energy projects they're trotting out right now are a painless solution to smog and climate change. They're not.

BERTON: You call it indiscriminate money throwing; I call it investment. Wind energy was worth over $25 billion worldwide in 2005. And the industry is doubling in size every three years. Denmark gets 20% of its electricity from wind. Yes, solar and wind development will cost taxpayers' money, but it will pay off economically and environmentally, and it will create lots of jobs.

GOLDSTEIN: Why can't you take "yes" for an answer? I'm not saying there should be no public investment in renewables. Tell you what, let's take all the tax money our government now gives to oil companies to find oil -- like they're not already making enough profit -- and use it to fund Canadian research into renewable energy. We can debate which renewables later. Presto! We create high-value R&D jobs in Canada and develop new clean technologies to sell abroad, while reducing our own greenhouse gas emission targets back home. Happy? Just don't pretend we can scrap our nuclear plants or stop building new ones.

BERTON: Unfortunately not, but the fact is we're not working fast enough to harness the wind and the sun. You almost sound like a politician with this "fund Canadian research into renewable energy" business. What government needs to do more of is help speed up the process for wind (or sun) developers, increase subsidies and legislate demand for it.

GOLDSTEIN: Am I in the Twilight Zone here? If you stop subsidizing the fossil fuel industry and direct that funding to renewable energy research, you ARE "speeding up the process" plus increasing public subsidies for research. What our politicians are doing instead -- like Premier Dalton McGuinty in Ontario -- is committing us to pay outrageous energy prices for "boutique" renewable projects that aren't anywhere near ready for mass use, just so they can announce they're "doing something." As for "legislating demand," yikes! Remember the former Soviet Union's "five-year plans for the production of tin?" How well did that turn out?

BERTON: Ah, nothing like invoking the memory of the evil Soviet Union to bolster an argument. Fine, we stop subsidizing the fossil fuel industry. But "outrageous energy prices" may be a good thing (if all the hidden costs for nuclear and fossil fuels are factored in) in terms of both conservation and research and development.

GOLDSTEIN: Actually, that would be telling people the truth. For all the nice, comforting, politically correct green/bafflegab talk about solar panels, windmills, hybrid cars and florescent light bulbs, the only way to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Canada is to charge outrageous prices for fossil fuels. That's the real discussion we haven't even started yet. If you seriously want to reduce greenhouse gases, windmills aren't going to do it for you -- $5 a litre gas will. That's the inconvenient truth our politicians won't talk about. Don't say you weren't warned.

BERTON: Now we're talking.