Get ready for smaller lifestyles by 2020

A minority of people in North America has already adopted a smaller lifestyle (e.g., live in a small house, drive a smaller car or predominantly ride a bike or walk, purchase fewer clothes, shop for groceries with shorter list in hand, etc.), and has done so out of necessity or because of the many benefits,

Below is a small news clip that affects the vast majority of people and lifestyle, whether it be considered normal or excessive.


[News clip from Nov. 5, London Free Press]

The “forecast price for a barrel of oil by 2035” is $212 (according to the International Energy Agency). Methinks, the 'new normal', as far as lifestyle is concerned, will likely come into play far earlier than 2035.

For example, by 2020, when average debt per Canadian family will be at $160 or higher per $100 of income (it’s at $150 at present), many people will be considering far more than dropping TV cable, cancelling their newspaper subscription, doing without a family pet or ordering Chinese every Friday night. Many will be considering selling their big house in the burbs for something smaller that’s close to work or a good grocery store. Quite a few will definitely get rid of their second car.

Many North Americans will be caught by surprise because governments, corporations and media do such a good job at propping up the illusion (now fading in the eyes of growing numbers of people who have little hope of finding a decent job in their lifetime) that progress will continue unimpeded for as long as they hold the reins of modern society.


[“With higher fuel prices, get used to pushing.”]

Read the last line of the news clipping, i.e., the report’s forecast for 2015 is up about 10% from the same report just last year.

Hmmm, what’s happened in the last year? And have things improved since then? How does 2016 look?

Let’s hang in there for another 4 - 5 years, then we’ll all know. And while we’re waiting, let’s shift our lifestyles down a notch or two.

***

Please click here for more high-priced concerns about the future.

.

Live Small PT 2: Hydro bills will rise for 20 years

I could be wrong but, because of a variety of factors, our hydro bills will likely rise for another 20 years.

Then we’ll get a short break - because the first Smart Meter program will be paid off - before more rising costs.


["Chop down the turbines and your hydro bill will still rise"]

By most Ontarians, our province’s hydro rates (predicted to rise by 46% over the next 5 years) are likely considered to be...

fully shocking,

fully expected,

or somewhere in between.

I’m somewhere in between because I sense Ontario’s energy demands will continue to rise for the next 20 years.

Even if rates stay the same from today onward (which they won’t) most business and residential bills will increase.

Wait, wait, wait, someone will surely say. We have the Smart Meters and they’ll help us smarten up and the bills will go down.

No, they won’t.

First, we’ll have to pay for the Smart Meter program for quite awhile. Those meters don’t come cheap. Wash your clothes on weekends only for the next ten years to save money, if you like (and I hope you will), but the cost of the program will still be on our bills. That’s a debt that will keep on giving for quite some time.

Second, the Smart Meter program is likely the precursor to the Smart Meter 2 program. Better meters. More information for the suppliers and the users. Old meters out. New meters in. More machines. More paperwork. More costs.

Third, conserve as you will (and I hope you will), your savings from your hard work will likely be swallowed up my the next rate increase and the one after that. As weel, the windows of opportunity to use the cheapest rates will close here and there, the time periods with higher rates will be extended. (You thought life was fair? I’m shocked).

Fourth, conserve as you will, the majority of major users and home owners will not. We’ve enjoyed 65 years of growing bigger and better and we aren’t likely to change. The Smart Meter might one day come with vocal chords but the majority will pay it no heed.

“Why can’t you do your work during non-peak hours?” the Smart Meter may yell.

“How many appliances and lights do you actually need?”


[Courtesy of Mojo]

“Can’t you exercise outside rather than run on a treadmill?”

“Try clotheslines. Grind the coffee by hand. Open that can of beans with one of those non-electric whatjamacallits. Don’t plug in the E-car. Walk to work fer cryin’ out loud.”

Just by listening to the Smart Meter’s frantic cries you can tell it really isn’t all that smart.

Even if a future government (let’s call it right wing and really concerned about reducing every cost known to man, especially taxes) chops down the windmills and turns up production of cheap black juice (coal-fired energy), associated costs will rise.

Likely for twenty years.

***

Live Small Pt 1: Are hydro rates shocking or expected?

Does my economic plan spell r-e-l-i-e-f?

.

Live Small PT 1: Are hydro rates shocking or expected?

Or are Ontario’s rising hydro rates (predicted to rise by 46% - likely a lowball figure - over the next 5 years) somewhere in between shocking and expected?

E.g., kind of in “I can see part of the reason but not all of it” territory.

Truth be told, right now, I’m not completely shocked.


["You can't easily surprise this kid!": GH circa 1955]

Reasons:

Our energy demands continue to rise, for one thing

Many people and politicians realize coal isn’t so cheap in the long run, so, want off ‘black juice’ as I like to call it

Infrastructure for nuclear plants is expensive

Maintaining water-driven hydro plants is expensive

And start-up fees for supplemental solar and wind programs are not cheap and we’re coming late to that table.

Taken together, these factors (there are others) add up to a hefty and growing bill.

No wonder people are complaining. My neighbours have taken to hiding their mailbox when hydro bills are delivered.

Opposition parties are complaining. Hydro bills could be a big election issue soon.

And the party in power is feeling so much heat they’re going to preside over a $6.4 billion Ontario Clean Energy Benefit to cushion the blow to some ratepayers, at the same time hoping taxpayers will not understand their part in paying off the $6.4 billion cost. (Hint: Ratepayers and taxpayers know each other quite well).

However, in spite of the loud complaints I’m not fully shocked by increasing rates.

Are you?

***

More to follow.

Read more Live Small posts here.

.

It Strikes Me Funny: Do wind turbines attract many tourists?

Shortly after my second column about wind turbines hit the street I received the following positive email (to add to my vast collection of positive emails that are kept in a well-organized file entitled ‘brilliant response as far as I’m concerned’):

Gord,

Thank you for setting the record straight on the alternate energy
issue in this province.

I studied wind turbines in Denmark in 1999 and installed turbines (177) in the Gaspe area as well as in Costa Rica (39) and I always found them to be beautiful as opposed to the alternate.


["My most recent photo of a turbine; Aug. 29, west of Pt. Burwell"; photo GH]

What I learned about turbines is that they are not dangerous at all to humans and birds.

Anyone travelling in Europe and around the world will tell you that they are very nice to look at, and in Gaspe they have become a tourist attraction...

Best regards, Maurice F.

And best regards to you too, Maurice.

Next time I travel to Halifax I’ll take the Gaspe route.

I’ll count heads and determine if there are more tourists than turbines.

***

Have you seen the Gaspe turbines?

Any micro brasseries in the region?

Et ‘Ouvert?’

.

It Strikes Me Funny: Is wind energy a sham?

Not in my opinion.

Not even after scanning the article that a local reader suggested I read.

MT wrote:

Hi Gord,

With reference to your article on wind energy, please have a look at this article which conveys a clearer view on the industry and the sham related to it.

Regards, MT

Sure, burning coal is cheap in some ways. Building coal-fired energy plants may be cheaper than building turbines and turbine-building plants.


["What are the costs related to smog?"]

However, many costs related to coal are not up front. The costs to the healthcare system and to society in general for burning coal and producing foul air cannot be easily tabulated. It’s easier to sweep "associated costs" under the carpet.


["What are the costs related to climate change?"]

But most turbine costs are up front. We can learn how much one costs, how much power it generates and how long it will take to pay it off before it produces hydro without a mortgage attached.

In Ontario, we know that in the future we’ll have a part to play in building our own turbines (a sustainable industry of sorts) and selling clean renewable energy back to ourselves. No coughing or hacking or respiratory illnesses will be involved.

***

Does coal sound like a good investment to you?

I’d rather get small (conserve) than get low (go under ground).

.

Live Small and Prosper Pt 2: The more solar projects the better

The government of Ontario - duly-elected and much-loved - would like its citizens (that includes me, over here in Wortley Village, London) to reduce our reliance on fossil fuel energy sources.

So, it’s facilitating the building of wind turbines and solar panel projects (19 solar arrays are expected to proceed as early as 2011), and offering green-energy producers really good prices for every kilowatt-hour they send to the electrical grid.

The more the merrier, I say.


[“Could these line any of our 1000s of corn fields?”: link to photo]

The Ontario projects will reportedly “translate into hundreds of millions in total construction value (think the green economy), and as many as 2,500 Ontario jobs (think green jobs and freshly minted green backs), because at least 60% of the components must be Ontario-sourced” for green-energy producers, e.g., Recurrent Energy from the US, to qualify for the premium return on their dollar. (Aug. 30, London Free Press)

It’s not a bad economic process for Ontarians.

Entice American or European companies to invest in Canada and grow jobs and a green economy in the process.

Why, pretty soon, our children and grand-children might be working for a company that is connected to a sustainable product and is providing 60 - 100% of the components.

Our homegrown pension plans - now knee deep in cow patties - might receive a boost too.

Green economy. Green jobs. A sustainable product.

It might cost us more for hydro now but, in the long-term, it’s a win-win-win situation.

***

Do solar arrays spoil the view or are they the view?

Would you put solar panels on your roof if the price was a bit lower?

Will the price come down as some of the above projects go on line?

.

Live Small and Prosper Pt 1: The more solar projects the better

Don’t ask me how it works (I don’t have a mind for business and I can prove it), but the more widgets you sell, the more efficiencies you develop (don’t even ask me what an ‘efficiency’ is), the cheaper you can sell an individual widget, and that’s a good thing, especially for those who what to add to their collection of cheap widgets.

They’d likely even be cheaper by the dozen. (I think that’s why the ‘baker’s dozen’ was invented years ago by a guy who baked more buns than he could eat in a week).

The above sounds good in theory but looks even better in practice.

And that’s likely why the Ontario government offers solar- and wind-energy producers a really good price (50 - 80 cents) for 20-year contracts for every kilowatt-hour they produce for the province’s electric-power grid.


["The sun works for me": link to photo]

And where do the widgets and magic theory (sell more, it gets cheaper) come in, as far as Ontario is concerned?

Here: The more solar projects on the books, the more jobs are created, the cleaner the energy, the better for future generations.

There’s more to it than that, of course.

Recurrent Energy, a California-based company, has 19 solar projects on their books for Ontario that are expected to produce about 150 megawatts of solar power, enough to power 21,000 homes.

By receiving 50 - 80 cents per kwh, Recurrent may turn a good profit after expenses.

Too good? I’ll let the business minds figure that one out. But our hydro rates will likely be affected (we pay less than 10 cents per kwh for juice at the moment, but if the province is paying 50 - 80 cents to produce it, someone will have to pay for the difference.

My thought: Ontarians will soon pay more for energy in order to establish green-energy production for future generations to use. Future generations may even pay a more reasonable price for hydro than the present one after the 20-year contracts have expired.

How do I feel about that?

Not bad, actually. The present generation is passing on a lot of debt (record amounts right now both provincially and nationally) so our grandchildren ought to have their hands full with the financial mess we’re leaving them - along with a lot more messes I must say.

There’s more to it than that too, of course.

Stay tuned.

***

I don’t mind turbines. They work for me.

I don’t mind solar panels and higher energy bills. (It’s a matter of fairness, I suppose).

Have I had too much sun?

.

Zoom w a View: Turbines work for me

Works of art.


Clean Hydro.

Clean air.


Fewer climate change concerns.


["There is a season... turn, turn, turn.": photos GH]

Their message with each turn of the blade: Conserve energy.

.

Wind Turbines: On a hazy day they don’t obscure the view

Four photos tell a story.


You may love wind turbines, you may hate them, you may say they are beautiful or you may say they obscure the view.


The photos say (the first three taken Sunday, west of Port Burwell, just across Lake Erie from Ohio Valley), if it’s a hazy day they don’t obscure the view at all.


On many days the haze obscures the view.

And what causes the haze?

I’d say this: In part, the haze is produced by coal-fired energy plants in the Ohio Valley and oil refineries in Toledo.


["Can you spot 30 - 40 turbines east of Port Bruce?": photos 2010 GH]

The more fossil fuels we burn, the more wind turbines look like a great idea.

***

If you say turbines obscure the view you are not alone.

In the long-term, however, are turbines one of the healthiest and cheapest ways to produce energy to meet our growing demands?

.

Wind Turbines Pt 3 and the loud call for public education

Love them or hate them, more wind turbines will eventually be marching across our landscape just as metal hydro towers with electrical lines over their shoulders (and delivering coal-fired energy) did many years ago.

Some will fear for the loss of a pristine view of the sunset, others will fear for the loss of tourism dollars, others will fear higher bills in the mail, others will fear the turbines won’t be built quickly enough for their own benefit (or for the benefit of others).


Whatever the case, more public education about matters related to the pros and cons of wind turbines needs to takes place.

“Nobody is telling anybody anything and the deadline is fast approaching,” said Cam Spooner of Arva who has a cottage with a view of the lake (Huron). (Aug. 18, London Free Press)

And from the same newspaper article:

“Residents are organizing to fight an enemy whose face and plans aren’t entirely clear.”

Whether the information re turbines (e.g., where, when, how many, at what cost) is out there or not, the government and turbine companies seem to be leaving citizens with the impression that not enough is known about the future of energy in this province.

In my humble opinion, the Ont. government is missing a golden opportunity to inform the public about the pros and cons associated with all forms of hydro production and what the real costs are associated with the high-energy lifestyle that so many Ontarians wish to pursue.

Whenever someone complains about how a turbine affects the view or real estate values our Premier or Energy Minister should talk about how coal-fired energy plants affect the view in a worse way and how coal dust affects the lungs and who pays for the surgery or burial of those affected by respiratory illnesses.

Whenever someone complains about the spike in their hydro bills our government leaders should inform the public about exact expenses related to coal-fired hydro plants from beginning to end, as well as about present and future wind turbines, and nuclear-power plants.

The citizens of Ontario are well educated and can absorb history and economic lessons about costs related to energy production going back 50 - 60 years. And such lessons might put our lifestyles in perspective. I.e., they may be quite excessive because of cheap fuel and energy costs.

We might also learn that the clock is ticking on cheap power and subsequent inflated lifestyles.

In conclusion, the loudest call should be for public education. Not that lovely views, tourism dollars, real estate values and low hydro bills aren’t important.

But we can’t continue to live without the knowledge of the true costs associated with the vast amount of fuel we require to live as we wish.

***

Live small and prosper.

.

Wind Turbines Pt 2 and the loud call for cheap hydro

I’m interested in the topic of wind turbines for several fascinating reasons.

In my opinion, the tall white productive giants are like living art installations.

“They spoil the view,” some will say.

“They are the view,” I say in return. “And a lot more beautiful than urban malls, big box stores, snout houses, and transport trucks flying down miles of tarmac atop some of the best arable land in the world.”


["What do turbines say to you?": photos GH]

(We could have fewer turbines if we reduced our spending on consumer goods, stayed home, dismantled our electric leaf blowers and raked the lawn by hand. The growing number of turbines make that statement with every artful sweep of their blades. Sorry, I digress).

In my opinion as well, turbines may actually produce power more cheaply than some other conventional means, i.e., coal-fired and nuclear energy plants, when you consider all the costs we bear related to hydro production.

“What the heck?” some will say and point to a complaint voiced by G. Drimmie in our local paper:

“Of more serious concern (i.e., than spoiling a view) - and a concern that affects all residents of Ontario - is the increasing electricity cost that these ‘green machines’ will inject into Ontario’s electrical grid. My bill is 19.6% higher than a year ago and will increase progressively as more and more expensive generating capacity is added. Electricity is becoming unaffordable to residents... and from a business standpoint we are pricing ourselves out of the market.” (Aug. 19, London Free Press)

Is hydro getting more expensive? Do turbines add to the cost?

Yes.

However, we need to ask ourselves if the cheaper bills of the past - for which so many people yearn - were subsidized for us in some way.


Or, were we paying a high cost for cheap hydro in some other way?

The answer again is yes.

High numbers of people entering our over-burdened health-care system with respiratory illnesses suggest we are paying for some costs associated with cheap, coal-fired energy with our very lives.

I suppose that’s one reason we have life insurance. Another cost, right?

Are there additional costs, other than on our hydro bills, associated with all forms of energy production, including wind power?

Certainly. And it would take a genius (which I’m not; I can prove it) to tease the costs out of all the various government and business departments (associated with manufacturing new energy plants, health care plans, towers, turbines, distribution lines, billing systems, etc.), but, in the long-run, I wouldn’t be surprised if wind energy turns out to be one of the cheaper forms of producing hydro, alongside solar panels and water-powered turbines as one of the healthiest forms too.

Let’s take the long view and consider all the costs, rather than complain about the loss of a sunset view and the costs of just wind turbines.

***

Q: Would you rather lose a view or a lung?

Public education about pros and cons associated with all forms of hydro production is a government responsibility, right?

To whom should I send my bill?

Sorry, I digress.

Please click here to read a Letter to the Editor and then link to Wind Turbines Pt 3

.

Wind Turbines Pt 1 and the loud call for a pristine view

Love them or hate them, wind turbines are in the news and may soon be parked offshore at a beach near you.

I like standing right under them and taking photos of them as they fade toward the horizon.


["Turbine at Orchard Line, west of Port Burwell": photos GH]

Others like them so far away they can’t be seen.

A recent government proposal “is for the turbines to be five kilometers from shore, but at that distance they would still be visible and would ruin the beautiful views of the lake,” says R. Leduc (Dashwood), Aug. 21, London Free Press.


["Turbines fade away east of Pt. Burwell beach"]

Mr. Leduc wants people to tell the government to place them “far enough from shore so they will still provide the necessary power but not be visible. This would be a win-win solution.”

Wait just a minute.

It would be win-win until Mr. Leduc pays his hydro bill.

Then he’d notice it is inflated due to higher construction and maintenance costs.

First, more far-off turbines would be needed to insure sufficient outputs (hydro is lost from lines as it travels toward its destination; the farther it travels, the more is lost, and we pay for the lost hydro; check your last bill).

Second, crews would need to be dispatched by boat or chopper to distant turbines for any repair.

Do boat and chopper crews work for free? Mr. Leduc’s got money to burn? Not likely.

However, he has likely grown quite accustomed to many other things that long ago spoiled his view.

I bet he’s seen power lines suspended from poles and towers for so many years now he doesn’t even notice them as they wind along his city streets delivering electricity right to a pole attached to his house.

And the 60 - 80 ft. giant metal monsters carrying wires from county to county through fields and forests are likely invisible to him now.


["On a hazy day 30 turbines become invisible at Pt. Bruce"]

Case in point. I used to stop and take pictures of turbines every chance I got when I first noticed them 3 - 4 years ago as they stretched from Port Bruce to Port Burwell. I even used to tell others to take a day and drive down to see the shiny new monsters. I was impressed with their beauty.

Now, I don’t notice them as much. I’m used to seeing them. They’re part of the landscape.

They do, however, still add to the view, in my opinion, when I glance over my shoulder while riding my bike along the lakeshore roads.

More than needing a pristine view, we need to conserve electricity.

***

What are other examples of things that once were very noticeable - spoiled our view - but now just blend into the background?

Large trucks on highways?

Big hair?

Front yard driveways filled with two or three cars?

Apartments taller than 4 storeys?

People over 6 feet tall?

Please click here to read Wind Turbines Pt 2

.

Deforest City Blues: Is it the summer of your discontent? Pt 3

Some might accuse me of seeing life through rose-coloured glasses.

I say, if you’ve got ‘em,wear ‘em.


‘Cause it’s tough sledding out there and for many there won’t be clear sailing for a long time, if ever.

Why, according to a special report in The London Free Press (July 31), some people are even thinking about moving out of Deforest City. Where to? I don’t know. Maybe Mexico?

I do know, however, most comments listed in the special report (‘The summer of discontent’) seem to indicate that increasing expenses, taxes, taxes upon taxes, levies upon levies and just about any form of government one can name are to blame.

The comments from 19 readers were peppered with exclamation points and strident questions.

Let’s look at a few more closely.

“Moving out of the city seems to be the answer.” (Pete, July 31, London Free Press)

Really? Moving out of the city seems to be the answer?

I don’t think so, unless you get more for your house than you paid for it, buy into a smaller mortgage, live more frugally (in a rural community or along a country road) than you do now and can adopt a new lifestyle far from your current lines of support and employment.


["Where would you go? Cleveland is so far away!: photos GH]

(Moving away has its pitfalls. Think about it. Get back to me).

“Is there going to be anyone left with money?”

Yes, plenty of people, but their numbers are being trimmed while we speak.

Many people have more money than they know what to do with and will be living in their big house with smoke pouring from fat steaks on their BBQ long after their neighbours go belly up.

If you have a relative like that and are feeling the pinch, start getting on good terms with them. Say nice things to them next time you see them. E.g., “What a nice basement you have. A whole other family could live down here when tough times arrive. Hey, I like the smell of your aftershave.” Stuff like that.

Some other people - not in the super rich category - will have money because they know how to live - get this - not only within their means but under their means.

(“Live under your means” should be my phrase of the week - I like it so much).

People who are in the habit of saving money regularly rather than spending it as if there is no tomorrow will still have money 20 years after their neighbours move away to live in a relative’s basement.

In other words, some people will be left with money even if energy costs, etc. rise again, and again. And costs will rise.

Marc made this comment:

“Hoping people will conserve through higher rates is idiocy.”

I disagree.

How long have we known that we consume an endless list of resources excessively, in needless, wasteful ways? During good times, when resources are cheap and plentiful, we seldom put some away for future use or for the next generation. You’ll run out of fingers counting up resources our grandchildren will require that are now under attack.

Reducing consumption voluntarily doesn’t work. We just want more.

But if gas, water, oil, pizza, hydro, land, clothing, cement, lumber, milk, copper, bread... (whoops, I’m out of fingers) ...prices go up, we’ll buy or use less.

Attacking the wallet works. Colourful ads about water shortages don’t.

In the 19 comments from readers I only read one that didn’t clearly lay discontent at the feet of the provincial or city government or the person who puts price stickers on bread.

Dee said, “We have to do something about this, but what? Does anyone have any suggestions other than griping? I’m open to suggestions.”

Let’s answer Dee’s questions, shall we?

But first, a walk on the beach, to think, to get to the root of the problems we face.


["Walk the beach. Try Pt. Bruce, but take running shoes"]

Man cannot live by bread alone.

Link to Series: Please click here to read Discontent Pt 4

***

If the beach is too far away then walk around the block.

Several times.

Shaun said, “Well people of London, bend over. The only ones not bending over are the politicians.”

Surely, after a quiet walk, we'll do better than that.

.

Is the Gulf of Mexico taking things personally, fighting back?

It’s interesting (not unusual) to watch the drama and conflict unfold in the Gulf of Mexico between man and nature.

When BP engineers recently used undersea robots to maneuver a gigantic metal chamber over a gushing oil well, their efforts were made to appear puny by the raw force of frigid temperatures and unpredictable challenges.

It’s as if two giants - one representing man, the other nature - are squaring off, waist deep in crude, and man is learning, perhaps too late, he has entered a battle of his own making woefully underprepared and ignorant of the shear power in the fists of his opponent.


If it was a science fiction story (unfortunately it's not), I’d say nature’s giant is fighting off a lesser opponent in order to protect what is rightfully his, or to proclaim he is not one to be domineered at a whim.

As easy-to-reach-oil disappears, man (consumed with desire to maintain his riches based on the power of fossil fuels) will venture forth into other gulfs and sea beds and difficult terrains.

In those places, will he meet other natural giants that wield powers beyond his understanding?


Hmm. Where’s the Green Hornet when you really need him?

.

At The Londoner: Earth Hour editorial makes a lot of sense and cents

I don’t refer to The Londoner, my city’s community newspaper very often because it would sound self-serving, and if there’s one word I don’t want to appear on my gravestone it’s self-serving.

(Please click here to read my weekly column. Okay, sorry, I’ll stop.)

As well, I don’t want firebug on my gravestone, but that’s another long (though rather exciting) story.

The editorial this week by Don Biggs, however, ended with a very interesting paragraph.

And I quote:


“Imagine the positive impact we would have on the environment, our health and our social well-being if we did this (turned off the lights and many other appliances) for just a half hour every night. Or at the very least, turn off the boob tube and walk around the neighbourhood every night after supper.

(Allow me to interject just this once: “... after supper and the exciting conclusion of Coronation Street” would have suited me better, but I’m not the editor).

“The incidence of heart disease, diabetes and other cardiovascular afflictions would decrease, and we will be doing our part to save the environment.”

Makes sense and cents, doesn’t it?

.

Climate Change Concerns: Earth Hour shines light on interesting facts and details

The popularity of Earth Hour has spread from being a single event in Sydney, Australia in 2007 to, reportedly, ‘become the largest environmental action in human history.’ (Countdown to Earth Hour, from Mar. 23 issue of The London Free Press)

The goal of Earth Hour, to raise global awareness about climate change, may be embraced by over 1 billion people in more than 100 countries this year, up from 88 countries in 2008.

Participants will voluntarily make efforts to reduce energy consumption in some ways in hopes that by so doing a message will be sent to world leaders that action on climate change is needed.


In Canada, participants in Earth Hour are being informed that ‘using candles can actually increase greenhouse gas emissions’ (GHGs) because almost 75 per cent of us rely on hydroelectric and nuclear power to produce electricity, and neither source produces GHGs. (We’re told a better option is to use electric candles or LED flashlights).

Many also know by now that we can reduce energy in more significant ways. Since 45% of energy in an average Canadian home is used by heating and cooling systems, 30% by appliances, 13% by the water heater and 11% by lighting, we can lower our consumption more by turning down the heat, turning off appliances that bear a phantom load, and washing clothes in cold water than sitting in total dark.

Do leaders still need to hear the climate change message? Here in Canada, 52 per cent of adults thought so in 2009, up from 49 per cent a year earlier.

The highest support in Canada for the climate change message in 2009 came from 62 per cent of the adults In Ontario, and from 59 per cent of the adults in the four provinces of Atlantic Canada.

The level of support may not only be gaining momentum but producing encouraging results.

There has been more news in the last 3 - 4 years about solar projects in and around our city and province than ever before. Provincial and federal governments have financially supported home owners who made improvements in the energy-efficiency level of their homes. I received $6,000 in rebates after insulating the walls, basement and attic of my home and installing energy-efficient windows throughout. (My wallet thanks you all).

But more can be done in the energy conservation department.

Though 75% of Canada’s energy comes from non-GHG producing sources, 18.2% still comes from coal, a major factor in our country’s GHG emissions.

Alberta leads the way, producing 81.7% of its hydro from coal, followed by Nova Scotia and PEI (71.7%), Saskatchewan (55.8%) and Ontario(19.7%).

And some East Coast provinces still produce significant amounts of greenhouse gases by burning heavy fuel oil (includes petroleum coke) to produce hydro. The worst culprit is New Brunswick, producing 36.1% of its hydro in this manner, followed by Nova Scotia and P.E.I. (15.8% combined).

Earth Hour 2009 saw a 6% decrease in Ontario’s energy usage, but we still have a long way to go to reduce overall GHG emissions and assist in the global battle against climate change.

One hour on a Saturday night won’t change the world but ‘lights out’ or ‘grab a sweater, Dear’ is still an important message, and seemingly growing more important each year.

.

3Rs Rock: Is there energy (and $$$) in old tobacco kilns?

Yes, we have such a long row to hoe in Canada when it comes to 3Rs, conservation of energy and other valuable resources.

However, though ‘for the second year in a row, Canada has placed second-worst among 17 countries on an international ranking of consumer behaviours that have an impact on the environment’ (Canadians lost points due to their preference for car ownership and large houses, said a 2009 report), a man from Simcoe may one day supply area farmers with a unique energy source by recycling old tobacco kilns.

According to a recent article found in the London Free Press, ‘old tobacco kilns are loaded with high-quality biomass. The wood -- mostly pine -- is decades old and has been subjected to repeated curings.’

Yes, I’d like to recycle some of that pine myself for birdhouses but I’m not jealous of Mark Bouchard’s idea.


["Can old kilns become energy in an environmentally-friendly manner?": photo GAH]

If he can turn the pine into fuel for farmers and reuse or remove asphalt shingles, tar paper, asbestos and spray foam insulation in a cost-efficient way, a temporary industry will be born.

I read that ‘since last fall, he has reduced 60 kilns to wood chips with a 500-horsepower Morbark tub grinder. The powerful machine can reduce three kilns to sawdust in 60 minutes. The chips are a popular fuel with greenhouse operators and other businesses that need a plentiful, inexpensive source of heat.’

[Please click here to read more about turning tobacco kilns into biomass fuel.]

Recycling and extracting the biomass, Mr. Bouchard said, is the environmentally responsible route to take (for tobacco farmers).

"I applaud them," he said. "It would be so easy for them to dig a hole and just bury it."

Mr. Bouchard works in an area I often motorcycle through, so I may try to get a look at the Morback tub grinder in action.

Though I bet I’ll need earplugs.

***

Have you heard of other enterprising people trying to turn 3Rs into a worthwhile business?

.

The Smart Meters are Coming. The Smart Meters are Coming Pt 6

Recently I began writing about The New Smart Meters. The New Smart Meters

They’ll be coming soon to a neighbourhood near you if not already hooked up to your hydro line.

Soon thereafter you’ll be charged Time Of Use rates (TOU), i.e., 4.4 or 8.0 or 9.3 cents per kwh, as opposed to a flat fee, e.g., 5.8 cents in London.

Please click here to read Part 5 for some context.

Please click here to read Part 4 because it ended on such a cheery note.

Some cities in Ontario, e.g., Milton, are already paying TOU rates, but I think London will not be switching consumers to, generally speaking, the higher rates, for a few months yet.

(The 5.8 cent rate will continue at least until April 30, 2010 according to a chart on the London Hydro website).

Recent comments back at Part 5 deserve some consideration at this time.

Anonymous said... Good fill someone in on and this fill someone in on helped me a lot in my college assignment. Gratefulness you seeking your information. February 14, 2010 4:15 AM

To Anonymous I can only say, I’m here to swerve.

Lost Motorcyclist said the following...

Raising the rates for big users will probably have some impact in local jobs. If we're ready to face up to that, then we are ready to raise their rates.



If you will be paying more for Hydro 92% of the time (Lost Motorcyclist is referring to me here), is that after you shift your use to off peak hours? I can't find my book right now but I read about ways to take advantage of the off peak rates.

I said earlier that 92% of my usual hydro-based activities will cost me more after Ontarians switch to TOU rates (incl. higher rates between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.), but there are indeed ways to take advantage of the lowest rate, 1.e., 4.4 cents per kwh (between 10 p.m and 7 a.m. on weekdays and all weekend) if I go the green shift.

For example, during summer months I can adjust the thermostat on my one window-based air conditioner upward a few degrees, use it primarily during off-peak hours and hope the weather co-operates.

Truth be told, I never use the a/c. If the house gets too hot I sit on the shaded front porch, take a motorcycle ride or work in my shop.


["One ride took me to the Sibley Peninsula on Lake Superior": photo GAH]

My wife, however, uses it a good deal as she feels the heat more than I do.

Should I talk to her about changing her a/c habit? Or do I want to live happily under the same roof with her until I’m 87? (Hmmm, I’ll get back to you about that one).

Though other changes to my routine will be easy to implement, i.e., I can do laundry Saturday morning before my regular trip to The Little Red Roaster for two big mugs of dark roast coffee, my computer use, TV habit and workshop routines will be harder to fix.

If the hydro bill goes up significantly, however, I may conserve energy by just dropping certain wasteful habits.

I mean, how many Law and Order episodes do I really need to watch before I get the point?

***

Will we cook more on weekends to last us through the week?

Will we buy more power bars, drop Coronation St.?

What else would be a valuable switch?

.

The Smart Meters are Coming. The Smart Meters are Coming Pt 5

I ended Part 4 on such a cheery note, didn’t I?

I said the smart meter booklet delivered to homes in London, though containing Time of Use timetables different than an official website, is likely the one Londoners should assume is correct.


But I also concluded by saying that “92 per cent of the time” I’ll be paying more for hydro and wondered if you are smart enough to save money with the smart meter?

Then I got distracted with other activities and didn’t get back here for awhile.

Regular readers may be used to my distractibility and likely think some of the following thoughts:

Gord’s mother must have worried about her wee boy’s short attention span and inability to sit still.

(She did).

His dad likely thought his son had ‘ants in his pants.’

(He invented the phrase).

His teachers must have had their hands full.

(They did).

Etcetera.

(I agree whole-heartedly).


["You know why I'm smiling?" "Do tell."]

But I come back today with two humble opinions that I’m sure you’ll enjoy hearing.

First, though the smart meter booklet says “if we all make some small changes to how we use electricity, we can also have a positive impact, both on the environment and on Ontario’s energy system,” and that all sounds appetizing (like apple pie with Aunt Jemima syrup on top), there may be, in my humble opinion, a few hidden calories on our plates that we should know more about.

For example, while I’m writing this, I’m paying 5.8 cents per kwh for hydro, a fixed rate. So are all households and small businesses.

Large business and industries are paying less, at a variable rate, i.e.,3.92 cents per kwh (as of 11 a.m. EST today), up from 3.35 cents an hour ago.


Ontario’s biggest users have paid, on average, 3.64 cents/kwh for February and 3.14 cents/kwh since Jan. 1, 2009.

Once the new rates begin, I’ll be paying, according to the smart meter timetable, 9.3 cents before 11 a.m. and 8.0 cents after 11 a.m. (until 5 p.m.) on weekdays and 4.4 cents all day on weekends.


["Timetables may differ in your municipality"]

In other words, when the booklet says “if we all make some small changes” they likely mean “we all” (as in households and small businesses) will have to make pretty big changes in order to spend less on hydro, conserve, and help the environment.

Whereas the other “we all” (as in big businesses, commercial users) will not have the same incentive to spend less, conserve, help the environment etc., unless market prices go up to the same degree as household rates.

If anyone can shed more light on the above matter (use a low wattage bulb), please feel free to leave a comment.

My second humble opinion relates to my earlier statement, i.e., “92 per cent of the time” I’ll be paying more for hydro.

I’d like to amend my statement.

If Ontario’s biggest users continue to pay lower rates on average - with no increase to incentivize conservation - then I’ll be paying more for hydro 92 per cent of the time and accomplishing very little for my money.

***

Everyone in the smart meter booklet is smiling.

The only reason I can come with so far - they all run big businesses.

Please click here to be transported, at the speed of hydro, to Part 6.

.

The Smart Meters are Coming. The Smart Meters are Coming Pt 4

My personalized smart meter (it has my personal ID number and I taped my high school student card to it so there’s no mistake when new rates are charged starting in a few months) is now installed, and if the pictures in my free (insert laugh track here) smart meter answer book are any indication, I’ll be smiling and laughing all the way to the bank.


Currently, as a residential hydro user, I pay 5.8 cents per kwh every hour of the day, every day of the week, whether it’s an off-peak time, e.g., 4 a.m. when 92 per cent of Ontarians are fast asleep, or an on-peak time, e.g., 6 p.m. when that same 92 per cent of Ontarians are turning on several appliances at once in order to eat supper and watch Coronation St. on TV.


["I'll just do laundry at six." "You realize that's 6 a.m.?"]

While I pay a fixed rate (for now) commercial users of various sizes pay the volatile spot market price, i.e., 3.37 cents per kwh at 1 p.m. today, and an average of 3.65 cents in February, 2010 and 3.14 cents average since Jan. 1, 2009, along with a variety of costs, some higher than my fixed costs.

In the near future my fixed rate of 5.8 cents will give way to three Time of Use (TOU) rates, an off-peak rate (4.4 cents per kwh), a mid-peak rate (8.0 cents) and on-peak rate (9.3 cents), and I’ll be charged the three rates depending on the time of day and season. (The times of day that we’ll be charged the three rates change between summer and winter timetables).

As I looked at the timetables in the booklet and on the smart meter website I noticed that they are not fully identical.


However, since London Hydro delivered the booklet into my hot little hands, I’m going to assume the booklet - this is the good news - is right for Londoners.

The bad news is, after looking at the rates and timetables, I came to the conclusion I’ll be paying more for hydro for 92 per cent of regular activities that involve a plugged-in device.

I’ll share a few gory details asap.

***

Check out the websites to answer the question:

Are you smart enough to save money with the smart meter?

.