The Ontario Power Authority recently submitted an amendment of its 20-year system power plan to the province's energy regulator. It includes a study completed by consulting firm Helimax Energy Inc. that looks at wind energy potenial on the Ontario side of the Great Lakes -- presumably both offshore and nearshore opportunities. The study identified and ranked 64 offshore sites totalling nearly 35,000 megawatts. All sites were at water depths of between 5 metres and 30 metres, had average annual wind speeds of at least 8 metres a second, and were able to accommodate 100 MW or more each.

Helimax excluded any site that had physicial or environmental constraints. No sites on shipping lanes or located above underwater cables were considered. Likewise sites that were located around wetlands, conservation reserves and other protected areas were not included. Lake Huron had 27 promising sites, while Lake Erie had 25. Only nine sites were identifid for Lake Ontario and just three in Lake Superior. It bears repeating that these sites are only on the Ontario side -- the U.S. side could have just as much or more. Characteristic of the better offshore wind regimes, Helimax calculated that the net capacity factor for all sites ranged from 34.7 per cent to 40.8 per cent, and it assumed the installation of 5-megawatt turbines. And as Helimax pointed out, "There are wind power projects that can be feasibly developed beyond the sites that are identified in the present study."

What the study shows is that there is tremendous opportunity for offshore wind development in the Great Lakes, and it confirms capacity factors far superior than onshore sites. Though it is acknowledged that the cost of developing offshore farms will be higher, one must remember that they won't be as high as the offshore projects being pursued in Europe, where rough, deep seas present greater technical challenges. And costs could drop depending on how serious Ontario -- or Michigan or New York for that matter -- want to develop this resource. In fact, jurisdictions like Ontario have an opportunity to become a centre of excellence for offshore wind development in North America.

But critics say the Ontario's power authority continues to downplay the importance of the resource. For some reason its submission to the regulator has assumed a capacity factor for offshore projects of 25.3 per cent, compared to an assumed 20 per cent for onshore. Why it has ignored Helimax's 34.7 to 40.8 per cent rating is perplexing. The power authority also says it will not include any offshore projects in its 20-year plan because it claims the lowest-cost offshore project would still be more expensive than the highest-cost onshore project, "despite having a more favourable wind regime and higher energy production potential." Interesting is that it includes the cost of transmission in the offshore projects, which doesn't generally happen with other power projects.

Given that the offshore market in North America is new and relatively wide open, one might think there's added benefits to pursuing this resource as part of a much broader industrial strategy. Ontario's manufacturing sector is struggling. Offshore wind could present one of several opportunities to create green-collar manufacturing jobs, proponents say. They're hopeful that the Ontario government sees the larger opportunity and is more willing to pursue it.

Perhaps more frustrating for some is the context of all this. Two nuclear reactors in southwestern Ontario are 60 per cent complete and already $600 million over budget, but both the operator of these reactors and the power authority that approved the project seem to treat it more like a rounding error. Yet talk of spending hundreds of millions of dollars to support development of a new industry is dismissed because of higher costs and too much risk.

It's fair to ask why?

How does this impact Altairnano?

That's the first question that came to mind when Electrovaya Inc., the Mississauga, Ontario-based maker of Superpolymer lithium ion batteries, announced that it is "negotiating a purchase and supply agreement and has begun work on a battery pack design and production program with Phoenix Motorcars." The company said it has already received advance payment for upfront engineering design services and hardware production.

Electrovaya's program is to focus on production of an integrated battery system and intelligent battery management systems for Phoenix's long-range electric SUVs and sport utility trucks. Phoenix Motorcars will manufacture the vehicles at its California facility.

Perhaps Phoenix, which says it plans to deliver its first vehicles to fleet customers sometime this year, is hedging its bets, like GM and Think Global have been doing. The company has had warranty claim issues with its previously announced battery supplier, Altairnano, but as recently as March the company re-stated its support for Altairnano's technology. "We wholeheartedly support Altairnano's technology and believe they provide the greatest product available on the market today," said Daniel Elliott, Phoenix Motorcars' CEO in a statement in March.

The key word being "today." That was then, this is now. Perhaps there are more underlying problems with Altairnano's battery. Discussion boards are abuzz. So far today Altairnano's stock is down 4 per cent on the news, which I'm sure hasn't sunk in yet.

Electrovaya, itself no stranger to bad news, is on a roll lately. In January it announced a joint venture with Malcolm Bricklin's Visionary Vehicles to produce battery packs for his plug-in electric hybrid car. The same month it announced it will "soon" be launching a low-speed electric vehicle called Maya-300 that will have a 120-mile range but be limited to 35 mph speeds. And last October is revealed it is establishing a joint venture with Electrotherm, the leading manufacturer of electric vehicles in India, with plans to build a manufacturing plant capable of producing 10-megawatt-hours per month of battery storage. The only problem, and perhaps this will change soon, is that Electrovaya is a penny stock that isn't exactly flush with cash. So I'm waiting to see if someone will soon step up to the plate and provide much-needed funding for this company and its battery technology -- a dark horse maybe in the HEV, LSV and EV races.

This research was reported back in February, but it was profiled again in a European Commission newsletter this month. It bears repeating, if only because there's a lot of misinformation going around about how the energy that goes into producing solar panels isn't much less than the lifetime energy you get out of it (claims I often hear -- surprise, surprise -- from proponents of nuclear and clean coal plants).

Researchers from Brookhaven National Laboratory and the EC's Integrated Project CrystalClear used data from 12 solar PV manufacturers to determine lifecycle emissions from four different PV technologies: multicrystalline silicon, monocrystalline silicon, ribbon silicon, and thin-film cadmium telluride. Their findings, according to the newsletter:

"The thin-film cadmium telluride technology emitted the lowest amount of harmful emissions because it uses the least energy during production. However, the differences in emissions between these PV technologies were very small in comparison to the significant emissions that could be saved by switching from conventional energy technologies to PV. The researchers suggest at least 89 per cent of air emissions associated with electricity generation could be prevented if PV replaced energy from the average European grid."

Even with the cadmium telluride approach, which produces heavy metals, it still found that this thin film process produced heavy-metal emissions that were 90 to 300 times lower compared to a coal plant fitted with the latest emission-control technologies. I should note that the cadmium telluride approach, used by First Solar, incorporates end-of-life recycling of heavy metals. Montreal-based 5N Plus, for example, is a main supplier to First Solar and places emphasis on its recycling services.

And, as processes for producing PV become more efficient, emissions will continue to fall. "Thinner films and greater efficiency are trends that will further reduce PV lifecycle emissions," the researchers concluded.

For a 2006 paper from Columbia University that looks at lifecycle emissions of a 3.5 MW multicrystalline solar PV plant in Arizona, click here.

If one looks at data from the World Nuclear Association, they'll see that solar PV is shown to emit three to 10 times the CO2 per g/kWh as nuclear. But you'll notice that the data for solar PV is several years out of date. Given much of the advances around solar PV are only a few years old, one could easily challenge the assumption of the nuclear industry. What I'd like to see as an up-to-date comparative analysis between nuclear, wind, solar, natural gas, and coal. If anyone has see one, please let me know.

Most algae-to-biofuel ventures or projects I've seen in the past have been focused on areas in the U.S. south where the warmer climate is favourable to algae growth. Canada, from what I've been told, isn't an ideal place to conduct such projects.

Turns out that's more assumption than fact, at least according to the Alberta Research Council and a research consortium looking into CO2-to-algae-to-biofuel processes as a way of cleaning up the oil sands. "Most people felt you can't grow algae to any great extent in higher latitudes, but in fact we've demonstrated it's tangibly not true," says John McDougall, CEO of the Alberta Research Council. "There's a million plus species of algae that grow in Canada today, and if you choose the right ones you can grow them very well here."

McDougall says they've also learned that growing algae in higher latitudes has some advantages. "We've learned that in very intense sunlight environments that algae actually turn off their functions and take a rest. In northern climates people don't take siestas, and neither do algae."

Still, we've got Canadian winters to deal with. McDougall says the consortium has ruled out the use of bioreactors to grow algae, simply because of the volume needed for a typical fossil fuel plant or oil sands operation. At the same time, the open pond route doesn't work so well in colder weather. So they've determined that a covered pond system will work best, with the idea being that the heat already in flu gas will be enough to keep the pond warm. Their base test case is a pond where the algae consumes up to 30 per cent of the CO2 emitted from the smokestack of a 300-megawatt coal plant. "We've just come through a feasibility study that's given us some design parameters," says McDougall. "The next two years we get to the point where we're dealing with practical issues." He expects a commercial-scale project is about three to five years away, and so far there are no insurmountable barriers to reaching that goal.

As far as the oil sands are concerned, he envisions algae ponds that do more than just capture CO2. The plan is to grow the algae on toxic tailing ponds that have attracted much scrutiny in the oil sands. The algae doesn't just consume CO2, they also love some heavy metals, nitrogen and residual hydrocarbons. If the approach could be made to work -- including the required management of algae growth, handling and harvesting -- the algae could be used to produce biofuels and a number of other products as they suck up CO2 and clean up other chemicals. "Industry is incredibly interested in this, because they can see it has a potential to take a cost burden out of the equation and turn it into a revenue-generating device, which is huge," says McDougall, adding that he sees a new industry spawning from this research. "I'm really quite excited about this. There aren't that many things that have the right buttons on them, but this one seems to have them."

Carbon capture and geological sequestration. Char production and biosequestration. Turning CO2 into baking soda and other usable materials. Growing CO2-sucking algae to make biofuels and clean up toxic pools. Certainly we've got options -- and we're going to need them all.

I've got a feature today on a Barbados-based company called PickupPal Online Inc., whose founders are based out of Ontario. The Web service takes a bit of eBay, a bit of Facebook, and a dash of online dating to create a rather slick service that matches up drivers with people who need a drive. Now, there's no shortage of rideshare services out there, but what makes PickupPal so unique is its global reach and its unique application of Google Maps to find common routes. And unlike other rideshare sites, which tend to be non-profit and encourage workplace carpooling, PickuPal focuses on events: music events, sporting events, or any other gathering where a particular group of people are congregrating at a particular time and place. It's a great way to reduce the number of cars on the road, and the amount of emissions.

The business model is a bit daring. They plan to take a 7 per cent commission from any driver who charges someone for a ride. The only problem is there's nothing forcing a drive to charge for a ride, and nothing really forcing a driver to pay -- except the fact that PickupPal has a rating system, so if you want repeat business and good reviews you've got to be honest. Bottom line is PickupPal is basing its future revenues on good will, and the ability to collect recurring commissions from a growing stable of loyal users. Now, there's a reason they're based in the Barbados: not only is it a tax haven, it also offers the company some protection from jurisdictions that frown upon anything that takes business away from buses and taxis. Imagine if people start using this service for airport dropoffs and pickups? Huge.

I also wonder about other legalities. What if somebody is assaulted, abandoned, or wronged somehow during a ride and decides to sue PickupPal? I guess it's no different than a dating site -- user beware. That's something for the lawyers to deal with.

My Clean Break column today revisits the idea of creating "biochar" out of wood waste using a pyrolysis process, and then blending the char in topsoil as an alternative way of sequestering carbon. We know that, done properly, we can lock about 60 per cent of the biomass' carbon into the char. We also know the char, when mixed in topsoil, helps with water and nutrient retention. The char is also easy to weigh and package, meaning it's an ideal substance for calculating carbon offsets as part of carbon-trading efforts. I wrote the column specifically to draw attention to the pine-beetle infestation on the northwest coast and a recent study that said the dead trees -- rather than absorbing CO2 -- are releasing huge quantities of greenhouse gases as they decay and rot. One solution could be to harvest the dead wood and convert it into biochar. It's worth a serious look, since carbon capture and sequestration technologies being considered by the oil and coal industries simply can't be applied outside of specific facilities and locations. With Canada's emissions growing, not shrinking, we have to consider all approaches.

The U.S. Department of Energy detailed nine projects destined to get funding as part of a move to make the U.S. electricity grid more efficient. The department, which is allocating $50 million over five years to these projects, aims to reduce peak load electricity demand by at least 15 per cent by integrating renewable energy and distributed generation into the grid. The only Canadian company taking part in the nine projects is Vancouver-based flow-battery maker VRB Power, which has a compelling product but so far has been unable to gain any sales traction.

VRB will be working with Chevron Energy Solutions, Pacific Gas & Electric, SatCon Technology Corp., the University of Wisconsin, and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, among others, on a three-year, $14 million project that will integrate solar energy, fuel cells, flow-battery storage and control systems in a way that significantly reduces peak load and improves power reliability at the Santa Rita Jail, in Alameda County.

Frankly, I don't get it. Storage seems more important for wind, in the sense you can store the energy overnight when you don't need it and dispatch it during the day. Solar is inherently beneficial during normal peak times, so I can't immediately see how storage will reduce peak load -- unless off-peak daytime solar is stored and dispatched during the highest peaks in the day. I suppose this helps reduce reliance on inefficient, dirty fossil-fuel superpeaking plants. Perhaps it can also smooth out solar output on cloudy days when the sun is obscured many times throughout an afternoon. Even so, I can't see how using storage in this way would be as economical compared to coupling it with wind.

On another note, Ontario seems to finally be putting some thought into grid modernization and intelligence. The Independent Electricity System Operator recently announced the formation of a working group composed of several utilities, which plan to brainstorm on a smart grid vision for Ontario and come out with a white paper later this month that more or less provides a rough roadmap of where we need to go. It's about time. For too long the industry here has equated smart meters with smart grid, not appreciating that intelligence has to be injected into the core AND the edge of the system.

A Montreal-based company touting itself as "Canada's only original equipment manufacturer of wind turbines of 1 megawatt and more," has raised $7.5 million in equity from a syndicate led by Canaccord Adams and National Bank Financial. AAER Inc. will use the proceeds to purchase manufacturing equipment for production of turbine blades and put deposits toward the purchase of required nacelle components. The syndicate has an option to purchase another $1.125 million in common shares. "AAER Inc.'s short-term business strategy targets market niches for wind parks not exceeding 50MW," according to the company's Web site.

Focusing on smaller wind projects could prove a good way for a newcomer in the wind-turbine market to gain some traction and slowly build up. There is so much demand for turbines these days that small projects are getting squeezed out, unable to reserve a spot in line because they're considered too small potatoes compared to larger wind-farm projects in the hundreds of megawatts. While it won't be a cakewalk for this company, it's certainly a new venture worth watching.

I've got a story in today's Toronto Star about a ground breaking on the first of many massive solar parks expected to be built across Ontario over the next two or three years. SkyPower Corp., a Lehman Brothers company, and joint-venture partner SunEdison LLC are beginning construction of a two-phase, 19-megawatt solar park about 30 kilometres west of Kingston, Ontario. SkyPower has another six 10-MW projects under development, and it's not alone. Topping the list is California's OptiSolar, which breaks ground on a six-phase, 60-MW solar park next month. In all, Ontario has signed contracts to purchase more than 400 MW of solar electricity for 42 cents a kilowatt-hour. Now, it's no guarantee all of these projects will get built, but given the fact that the largest solar installation in Canada to date is only 100 kilowatts, the ground-breaking on these large parks is nothing short of impressive.

NOTE: When they're built I'm going to have the Toronto Star charter a plane so we can take fly-by pictures and video of the parks. It's about time we have our own images, rather than relying on the same old snapshots out of Bavaria, Germany.

I'm being bombarded with press releases -- most of them greenwashing -- because of Earth Day, but one announcement caught my eye. A company called EcoCab unveiled today that this summer it will launch a pedal-powered taxi service in Toronto, with plans next year to expand into other major urban centres across Canada. The launch in Toronto will involve 28 EcoCab "bikes" -- which are three-wheeled bicycles with a passenger cabin that also features battery-assist, allowing the vehicle to reach speeds of 12 km/h (8 miles/hr) without having to pedal. "Able to easily navigate through congested city streets, the EcoCab provides convenient door to door service between office buildings, transit stations, shopping areas, restaurants, and entertainment attractions," the company said.

Now here's the kicker, and conventional cabbies won't like it one bit: the service is free. That's right, anybody can hop into one of the EcoCabs and get a free ride. The service is funded by do-good corporate sponsors.

Simple. Effective. My only question is if you can drive one of these things in downtown Toronto, why can't you drive a ZENN?

Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and RockPort Capital Partners have formed a joint venture with Norwegian electric car maker Think Global to bring their highway-speed, crash-tested car to the U.S. market in 2009. Kleiner Perkins managing partner Ray Lane, who is chairman of the new Think North America, called the creation of the joint venture and plans to mass-manufacture an electric car in the United States a "seminal event" along the way to zero-emission transportation. "The transportation industry is undergoing its largest transformation since Henry Ford built the Model T," said Lane.

The Think City model is 95 per cent recyclable and reaches a top speed of 65 miles (100 kilometres) an hour. It can also drive up to 110 miles (180 kilometres) on a single charge, though I'm guessing that varies depending on the battery technology used. Think Global is working with two battery technologies: On the lithium-ion side, the car can use a nanophosphateTM system produced by A123, or a lithium manganese system from Enerdel; another option is a nickel-sodium chloride "Zebra" battery from MES DEA SA.

This announcement merely adds momentum to an exciting trend. The fact that Kleiners and RockPort are getting behind this and directly steering the new Think company is yet another sign that EVs aren't just a passing fad. A number of startups and some of the big automakers are in a race to get the first mass-market electric vehicle to market over the next year or two. This competition is healthy, and will continue to drive the kind of battery innovation we need to truly see EV vehicles reach mass appeal.

Me, I drive a little 1997 Honda Civic hatchback. My next car will be electric -- either all or plug-in. I can't wait until that purchase day comes.

Greentech Media has a series of excellent articles today profiling a few companies trying to tap wind energy in a different way than what we see from conventional wind farms. Companies mentioned in the pieces included Magenn Power (read here), Mariah Power (read here) and Southwest Windpower (read here). Another I've written about the in past is WhalePower.

A big open question is to what degree any of these approaches have a chance anytime soon? The wind industry is dominated by big turbine makers who can't keep up with demand. Wind-energy developers will buy up anything they can get, so there's little incentive for the Vestas and GEs of the world to invest in cutting edge technologies that improve or complement their existing wind businesses. This concerns observers such as Robert Thresher, a researcher at the National Wind Technology Center, which is a part of the U.S. government's National Renewable Energy Lab. "It's such a sellers market right now," says Thresher. "The market has grown, there's high demand, and (manufacturers) are taking their money and investing in plants and factories." Likewise, Joshua Magee, an analyst with Emerging Energy Research, says the focus for the wind industry right now is on implementation rather than innovation. He calls any improvements to existing technologies "incremental" among the main manufacturers, which are more focused on the potential for energy storage that can give their product a more baseload profile.

That said, the big manufacturers ignore these new technologies at their own peril. Both Magee and Thresher say new approaches could prove an effective way for smaller companies to break into the big boys club or for one of the big boys, through an acquisition, to distinquish themselves in a market where the products are increasingly becoming different flavors of vanilla.

Time will tell, but it's good to see innovation taking place -- let's just hope investors can appreciate the potential.

We often get so focused on conventional solar PV or solar thermal heating that we forget about some of the other approaches out there, including one that claims to be "the fastest solar payback on the planet."Conserval Engineering, based in Toronto, has for nearly 30 years been providing an air-based solar heating system, called SolarWall, to industrial- and commercial-scale building projects. It's basically a special metal cladding on the south-facing side of a building that converts heat from the sun into warm air that is circulated throughout the building.

The company's most recent installation is in upstate New York, where 50 SolarWall systems have been installed across 27 buildings at the Fort Drum military base. The company says the systems, perhaps one of the earliest examples of build-integrated solar design, will collectively produce 4 megawatts of peak thermal energy. "The technology heats ventilation and makeup air required in vehicle mainteance garages, warehouses, hangars, etc... displacing the traditional heating load," the company said. Conserval recently expanded its manufacturing capacity in Toronto. It's not widely known that the Canadian government, NASA, Ford, Federal Express, and Wal-Mart are among the company's major customers.

In addition to solar air heating, the company has branched out into providing combined solar PV and air heating. It also sells its air system for agricultural and industrial process drying, which could prove tremendously useful in markets looking to exploit wet biomass. Past efforts in this area include a coffee-bean drying project in Costa Rica.

Waterloo, Ontario-based Arise Technologies Corp. announced this week that it plans to build a high-purity silicon production plant by 2011 that will supply up to 10,000 tonnes a year to the solar industry, including its own PV cell production facility in Germany. The company also said it will expand the 2012 production target for its German plant by 56 per cent to 560 megawatts.

The German facility is expected to start manufacturing a 35 MW-capacity production line later this month, making cells that are at least 15 per cent efficient. Line 2, in production in the first quarter of 2009, will increase plant capacity to 80 MW annually and produce cells that are up to 18 per cent efficient. The original plan was to work up to eight production lines, but the announcement of increased capacity will bring the number of lines to 12 by 2012, with each line becoming progressively more efficient -- "more than 20 per cent cell efficiency," the company said.

As for the Canadian silicon plant, Arise CEO Bart Tichelman said a location for the plant has not been determined. "We're in the midst of site selection with several provinces as candidates," he said, listing off B.C., Manitoba, Quebec and Newfoundland as possible candidates -- largely because they have a lot of cheap renewable power. But he didn't exclude Ontario, Arise's home province. "Ontario has got some attractiveness to it," he said. "Obviously we're delighted with the support we've received from the federal and provincial governments, and it will clearly have an impact on where we go."

Arise will be competing, in Canada at least, against Mississauga, Ontario-based 6N Silicon, which plans to manufacture solar-grade silicon in Ontario. Toronto-based Timminco Ltd. is also a big player in this space, having signed several long-term supply contracts over the past year or so, most recently a large contract with solar-cell leader Q-Cells of Germany. Arise, however, says it will focus on higher-grade silicon that achieves better efficiencies for solar cells.

If Arise can deliver, this is great news. But it makes you wonder why the company has made an announcement for something planned for 2011 and 2012, when clearly it didn't have to. Arise has a history of making big promises or announcements promising deals a few years out, only to underdeliver or have such promises fade into distant memory. Contrast that to Vancouver-based Day4 Energy, which has laid out a more realistic plan backed by solid contracts and significant revenue growth.

Still, it's encouraging to see the momentum building for Arise and I hope the company proves its skeptics wrong.

My Clean Break column today is based on an interview with Robert Zubrin, the author of Energy Victory and the engineer that has been most vocal about sending humans to Mars. Zubrin's main thesis is that the Organization for the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) has been manipulating and benefitting from high oil prices and that this monopoly grip on the fossil-fuel market must be broken. He wants legislators to mandate that every new vehicle manufactured have flex-fuel capability, a move that would boost investment in and availability of biofuels and essentially water down OPEC's influence.

Now, this is quite the contentious argument given it seems more focused on energy security than on sustainability. There's no shortage of headlines trashing the environmental benefits of ethanol and emphasizing the impact on food prices and, in some cases, the negative environmental effects of growing corn for fuel. Mandating flex-fuel in all new vehicles would merely amplify the problems being discussed today, critics say.

I have to admit, I'm torn on this one. I see the value of biofuels, assuming our increased production of the fuel can be done sustainably, guided by regulation, and assuming we can transition quickly to cellulosic ethanol. The question is, would a flex-fuel mandate create such a huge, instant demand that all rules go out the window in order to meet this demand? Would it require we import ethanol from other countries where environmental track records are poor and beyond the oversight of North American governments?

Zubrin, I point out in the column, isn't opposed to electric cars or plug-in hybrids -- he's actually a fan. But he also points out the reality that these vehicles are at least a few years away and that they will come with a hefty premium. Flex-fuel cars, on the other hand, could be manufactured tomorrow and would cost about $100 per vehicle. Zubrin eventually sees us driving flex-fuel plug-in hybrid vehicles -- the ultimate vehicle configuration, many say.

I should point out that WWF came out this month with an excellent report titled "Plugged In: The End of the Oil Age," which argues that the electrification of transportation is necessary to break oil's monopoly and effectively tackle climate change. You'll notice from my column that I cite the report, which doesn't dispute the need for biofuels, but sees biofuels as a complement to electric cars -- again, that whole concept of the flex-fuel plug-in hybrid. The report is well worth the read.

I'm curious to get your views on this issue. Should we take dramatic action now by mandating flex-fuel technology, and then go down the path of making these flex-fuel vehicles plug-in hybrids? Or, should we go directly to the plug-in hybrids and all-electrics and forget biofuels altogether?

Ontario has a number of demand-response programs in place to meet its aggressive targets for what could loosely be called peak conservation. The latest is called DR3, and it's what you could call the highest quality demand response -- contractual obligations for aggregators to reduce load demand when asked to by the province's electricity system operator.

About 10 aggregators have applied to participate in the program, and last week Enernoc and ConsumerPowerline were the first to tout contracts with the Ontario Power Authority. Both companies, and any other DR3 participant, basically sign a five-year contract that requires them to deliver up to 25 megawatts during critical peaks to reduce stress on the grid. From what I understand, aggregators (and the individual companies they've signed up) stand to make some decent money from the guaranteed negawatts.

"The larger story is that there's now a large group of very excited and interested aggregators willing to sign up and build this new demand-response industry in Ontario. That growth of a new industry I think is really an exciting story," said Sean Brady, director of demand response and industrial programs for the Ontario Power Authority.

Companies or organizations that use 50 kilowatts or more of electricity are permitted to sign up with aggregators. "What's interesting is that it's a new opportunity (for organizations) to look at using energy consumption as a strategic asset, and demand-response gives you the opportunity of monetizing your assets," said Brady, adding that this will spur development, investment and deployment in new technologies such as controls system and energy management systems. "The other opportunity is that you have a set of fresh eyes from these aggregators who are looking at your electricity consumption."

The Ontario Power Authority plans to have 566 megawatts of demand-response in place by 2010, part of the province's commitment to reaching 1,350 megawatts of conservation by the same year. Aggregators participating in DR3 have nine months to ramp up to their 25 megawatt limit. Brady said he expects that many will be set up by this summer.

A Toronto-based company called Woodland Biofuels Inc. has attracted its first institutional investor, Investeco Capital Corp., which has funded $1.25 million (Canadian) of what is expected to be a $3.25 million investment. Like others in the market, including Montreal-based Enerkem, the company uses a gasification process to break down wood biomass and agricultural residue. It can also process human and animal sewage "sludge" and municipal solid organic waste. The gas is then processed through a series of catalytic reactors to produce ethanol, distillation water and steam. Investeco determined the process was "extremely efficient" and sufficiently scaleable to support Woodland's march toward commercialization. Woodland, it should be pointed out, was recently granted $9.8 million from Sustainable Development Technology Canada toward development of a demonstration plant for its process.

More and more of these cellulosic ethanol plays are coming out of the woodwork, so to speak, suggesting that perhaps the quest for non-corn ethanol is closer -- as I've said in past posts -- than initially thought. At the very least the flurry of activity and funding is a good sign.

Interesting story in the Boston Globe about Westwood, Mass.-based Acumentrics, a maker of solid-oxide fuel cells. The article states the the company is working with Italian heating products firm Merloni TermoSanitari to develop a commercial household version of its fuel cell, which would hit the European market by 2010 and cost around $5,200.

Solid oxide fuel cells run much hotter than the PEM-based cells that companies such as Ballard Power have developed. This makes SOFCs a poor option for transportation, but great for fixed applications where a relatively clean fuel like natural gas can be used on site -- i.e. someone's basement -- to produce electricity, heat and hot water. The company's CEO is quoted as saying he expects the product to be certified for a 10-year lifespan and that the payback from energy savings in Europe, where energy prices are quite higher, will be about three years. Cracking the North American market will be harder, but the company remains hopeful, citing the fact it has in recent years increased the fuel cell's output 120-fold, cut costs 90 per cent and reduced the size by 80 per cent.

Acumentrics acquired last year the assets of Fuel Cell Technologies Ltd. in Kingston, Ontario, which became Acumentrics Canada Ltd. and is focused on R&D for the company. That office is working on the use of ammonia and paint fumes as a fuel for the Acumentrics fuel cell.

Of course, Acumentrics isn't the only player in this game. The secretive Bloom Energy, a well-funded venture backed by Kleiner Perkins, is also pursuing the SOFC market with a technology first developed for the NASA Mars program. Sunnyvale, Calif.-based Bloom has 200 employees and is ramping up fast. It claims to be twice as efficient and have 100 per cent less emissions than conventional energy generation technologies. Curious.

Unlike fuel cells for cars, one can clearly see a path of commercialization for SOFC systems and their eventual use in homes.

Mississauga, Ontario-based startup 6N Silicon Inc. has raised up to $20 million in a second round of financing. The company's goal is to be the lowest-cost provider of solar-grade silicon that doesn't need to be blended with high-purity silicon. It has come up with a proprietary, low-energy process, which can be inexpensively scaled up, for upgrading standard metallurgical-grade silcon into solar grade silicon. 6N wants to be one of the industry's leading suppliers of solar-grade silicon within three to five years.

Venture capital group Good Energies led the round, which includes previous investors Yaletown Venture Partners and Ventures West. 6N, founded less than two years ago by current president and chief technology officer Scott Nichol, raised $6 million last July and has been moving quite fast on its plans for commercial-scale production. "This is clearly an important milestone for 6N, and we are looking forward to entering our initial production phase and then ramping up aggressively from there," said David Dunnison, vice-president of business development.

We can only hope, right?

ZENN Motor Co. held its annual general meeting today and offered some more insight into when it expects product from Cedar Park, Texas-based EEStor and when it plans to come out with a highway-speed electric vehicle using EEStor's "game-changing" energy-storage technology.

That date would be fall 2009, the company said -- a far cry from orginal talk of 2007 but, if the product delivers on its promises, I'm sure it will be worth the wait. "The cityZENN is planned to be a fully certified, highway capable vehicle with top speed of 125 KPH/80 MPH and a range of 400 kilometres/250 miles. Powered by EEStor, the cityZENN will be rechargeable in less than 5 minutes, feature operating costs 1/10th of a typical internal combustion engine vehicle and be 100 per cent emission-free," the company said in a statement following the meeting.

One point: I expect the "rechargeable in less than 5 minutes" comment would be true only if there are special charge stations available, since I'm told this wouldn't be possible from a standard home outlet.

ZENN chief executive Ian Clifford said EEStor's storage technology is in "advanced stages of commercialization" and that commercial product will first be shipped to ZENN in 2008. Though the company said it has not yet tested the technology in a vehicle application yet. The company also plans new 2009 versions of its low-speed ZENN, including a four-passenger car and a utility vehicle.

Talks are also under way with some of the automotive OEMs, though Clifford wouldn't mention names. ZENN has the right to enter joint ventures with OEMs to produce vehicles with its EEStor-powered "ZENNergy drivetrain." The company also plans to develop and market its ZENNergy drive systems for retrofitting and conversion of existing internal combustion vehicles. The initial target, the company said, will be large, high-profile fleets.

Someone at the meeting asked about the cost of the highway-speed cityZENN. Clifford commented that he expects some premium compared to internal-combustion alternatives, but also expects the car to be competitive with comparative gas-guzzlers and well within the range of affordability for prospective car owners.

Dick Weir, founder and CEO of EEStor, told me a few weeks ago that there would be an announcement soon on permittivity of its barium titanite powder, considered a major benchmark that would trigger future payments to EEStor from ZENN, and I can only assume Kleiner Perkins as well. No word yet, though I'm told EEStor is working on various aspects of its technology in parallel with the goal having a production run of commercial product in 2008.

Sometimes this whole story is like one of those dreams in which you're running toward something but the ground keeps slipping from under you... One thing I will say though: ZENN has done a decent job throughout all this of building its brand.

There's an interesting little company in Vancouver called Sempa Power that's been sharing a little secret with governments, business and industry: sometimes it's okay to use electricity for heating. A shocking statement, eh? I mean, with the exception of heat pump technology, electricity has generally been vilified as a source of heating.

Sempa sees it a different way. It has developed software that does an up-to-the-minute analysis of natural gas, propane, oil and electricity rates and can switch a customer between electricity and fossil fuels whenever the rate is lowest. This requires putting in electric boilers at a customer's site, but Sempa argues that the savings from its "hybrid heating" system offer a payback of just three years. This is because natural gas tends to be cheaper than electricity during the day but more expensive at night, particularly as jurisdictions move to time-of-use electricity rates that offer off-peak discounts. It also turns out that nighttime electricity is cleaner than using natural gas in jurisdictions that rely on nuclear and hydroelectric generation for baseload power, and which have a lot of nighttime wind generation. So Sempa customers, in addition to saving, can also lower their environmental footprint. Hotels like it. Sempa has installed its system in several hotels already, including in Whistler -- the site of the 2010 winter Olympics. The system is also in a hockey arena in Manitoba.

What Sempa is doing is not rocket science, but it does highlight the benefit of thinking more holistically about how we use energy. Too often we pit grid power versus natural gas, without thinking that one is better some times and the other is better other times. Not only does a hybrid system get you savings and, in most cases, reduced emissions, but it also gives you a backup in case one of the two fails.

Software, telecommunications and computers play an enormous role in greening up business, first and foremost by allowing us to monitor and track the performance of renewables and conservation efforts, and how we access and manage energy on the grid, within industry, and in homes and businesses. Such technologies specifically designed to be enablers of greener products or processes could, on their own, earn the label of being green. But is a more efficient computer (or appliance for that matter), or the use of IT to replace what is otherwise an energy-intensive task, also worthy of a green label? If you compare how we treat vehicles, the answer would appear yes. We label hybrid cars, electric cars, and small vehicles like the Smart Car green because of their reduced environmental footprint, so why shouldn't we label a data centre green or an individual computer server technology green because of their dramatically reduced use of electricity?

My only problem with this is that cars, appliances, and computers naturally get efficient over time. An Energy Star appliance today could be deemed an energy hog 10 years from now. It's a constantly moving target, so calling a computing product or car green is, I suppose, relative to some kind of industry average at a given point in time. Same goes for lighting -- will CFLs be considered energy efficient when LEDs become mainstream? Perhaps it's impossible to come up with a clear, objective definition of "green." Green is in the eye of the beholder, a subjective label that might be obvious to some and considered greenwashing to others.

On Wednesday Cisco chief executive John Chambers will be joined by Al Gore on a "telepresence" system (a fancy videoconferencing system) that will be broadcast live at a trade show in Orlando, Florida. Chambers and Gore will argue in front of an audience that such technology is green because you can hold in-person meetings without having to travel by jet or train or automobile -- in other words, without creating a carbon footprint. I suppose this is true, but videoconferencing no matter how fancy isn't anything new. It was proposed as an ideal solution during the SARS infection outbreak in Toronto as a way to conduct business without catching diseases; it was proposed as a way to avoid being on a hi-jacked plane after Sept. 11; and it's been proposed as a way to keep the world running if a bird flu pandemic strikes. It gets reinvented, recast depending on the crisis of the day. In fact, Chambers has been making the same argument lately for most things IT. So, is it green? If so, should we call the telephone, or e-mail, or the Internet green?

It's not entirely clear to me where the line should be drawn. Perhaps the marketplace will be the ultimate judge, and the public either accepts the green talk of a company like Cisco or rejects it as greenwashing. It's a risk any company faces when it tries to take something that exists and market it as green, for no other reason than because it can and nobody calls them on it.

For the record, I'm a big supporter of using any technology to improve efficiency and reduce the need to travel. In fact, it would be interesting to see a study that tries to estimate how much greenhouse gas emissions we have avoided by moving to a networked world. The question is whether we can properly call it green.

My Clean Break column today takes a look at the wisdom of completely banning incandescent light bulbs to promote the use of compact fluorescent lights and LEDs, particularly in the kind of colder climates we see in Canada and northern parts of the United States. Nobody disputes the superior efficiency of CFLs and LEDs, but what we often forget is that the heat lost from older incandescent bulbs actually contributes to the heating requirements of homes during the winter. The question then becomes: Are we releasing more greenhouse gas emissions by using more fossil-fuelled heating to make up for the heat that we're not getting from CFLs and LEDs? The answer, as you'll read, isn't so clear cut. If you're in a state or province that relies heavily on fossil fuels for electricity generation, then it may make more sense to use more efficient lighting year round. But if you're in a state or province that uses more emission-free hydroelectric power and nuclear power, then it might make sense to keep on using that Edison-style bulb during the winter.

It may be that in certain regions of North America we need to treat lighting like we treat car tires. Just as we switch to snow tires during the winter, we might want to consider switching to incandescent bulbs in the winter and back to CFLs or LEDs during the warmer months when we don't want the heat loss from old bulbs contributing to our air conditioning needs.

Based on this perspective, it might be wise to question whether an all-out ban on Edison-style bulbs makes sense.

Canada's Competition Bureau, the federal body that polices anti-competitive behaviour and misleading advertising, is expanding its mission to the world of greenwashing. The agency is reportedly getting ready to crack down on companies that make "green" product and service claims that aren't backed up by the facts. It's also releasing industry guidelines that were developed alongside the Canadian Standards Association. The guidelines will define what can be called "recyclable" and will require that any green claim made by a company be backed up with hard data. According to the Globe and Mail, "Under the new guidelines, companies won't be allowed to make vague or non-specific claims about their products. They'll also be restricted from calling a product as 'free' of a particular chemical or compound if that substance was never used in the first place."

This could prove a valuable exercise for consumers, which want assurances they're not being misled by marketing spin. Many companies have jumped on the green bandwagon by simply repurposing existing product so they appear as "green." There was bound to be a backlash, as I pointed out in my beginning-of-the-year predictions for 2008. It's unclear how the Competition Bureau will go about enforcing these rules, but it will certainly inject a bit of "green chill" during brainstorming sessions at advertising and marketing firms.

The cost of manufacturing organic LEDs will need to fall dramatically if they're ever going to be a competitive lighting technology -- i.e. attractive to mainstream consumers. GE announced today it has demonstrated a roll-to-roll manufacturing process that spits out organic light-emitting diodes the same way newspaper presses spit out tomorrow's news. The company is calling it a "major milestone," and said the process could also be adapted to produce organic solar PV cells and rollup displays. "It's now easier to envision OLEDs becoming another high-efficiency GE offering, like LEDs, fluorescent, halogen or high-efficiency incandescent," said Michael Petras, vice-president of electrical distribution and lighting at GE Consumer and Industrial. The demonstration comes after a four-year, $13 million research collaboration between GE Global Research, Energy Conversion Devices (ECD), and the U.S. Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology. ECD's subsidiary, United Solar Ovonic, is using the approach to mass-produce its flexible Uni-Solar brand solar laminates, the company said.

Montreal-based Enerkem is making solid progress on the construction of a 1.5-million gallon cellulosic ethanol plant that will use old creosoted powerline poles as its main feedstock. Construction of the plant began last October and the next phase will be the installation of gasification and gas conditioning equipment, followed by the "catalytic islands" that will convert the syngas into cellulosic ethanol. "Unlike other gasification technologies, which are limited to using the gas for production of heat and electricity, Enerkem's synthetic gas is conditioned for use as a chemical feedstock in the manufacturing of higher value-added products, such as cellulosic ethanol and other biofuels," said Enerkem president Vincent Chornet. The company expects to announce other projects in the near future that include the use of municipal solid waste as feedstock. Last November I wrote about how railway giant Canadian Pacific had struck a deal to have its old wooden railway ties gasified and ultimately used to generate electricity.

NOTE: Just noticed today that GreenField Ethanol, the largest ethanol producer in Canada, has appointed an executive to lead up the company's new cellulosic ethanol division. More evidence that the cellulosic approach, while still not ready for prime time, could be here faster than people think.

My Clean Break column today takes a look at Toronto-based WhalePower Corp., which believes it has a better way to make blades for wind turbines and fans. The idea is to design the blades with bumps or "tubercles" on their leading edge, similar to what you see in nature on humpback whale flippers. There's been steady progress on the wind turbine side, but WhalePower is taking advantage of the much shorter product design cycle for industrial fans. It has already signed a non-exclusive licensing agreement with the largest industrial ventilation fan maker in Canada, Envira-North, which plans to launch a line of fans based on the unusual design at the end of April. Stephen Dewar, vice-president of business development at WhalePower, believes the increased performance (up to 20 per cent more efficient), reduced noise, and better handling of air with the fan design will go a long way toward demonstrating why the tubercle design will also work for wind turbine blades. The thinking is that wind turbines equipped with these blades can tap much lower wind speeds because the bumps on the blades dramatically delay stall.

It's an interesting story to follow.

I want to bang my head against my computer monitor, I really do, but it would be difficult to write this post with blood splatters on my screen.

Canadians got the details of their 2008 federal budget today and, well, let me just say that the Conservative government of Stephen Harper is consistent. New subsidies for the coal, oil and nuclear industries and new handouts to major automakers. No mention of climate change. No extension of incentives for renewables. The cancelling of incentives for buying energy efficient vehicles. Dismissal, once again, of a carbon tax.

I think I'm going to throw up. We're screwed.

Now, you could say that the promise of $300 million to help Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. finish its latest Candu reactor design, or the promise of $250 million to the oil and coal guys to help with carbon capture and sequestration research, is a decent chunk of change aimed at carbon mitigation. You could also argue that $250 million going to the auto industry for research into more fuel-efficient cars is also "green."

But let's start with the nukes. Atomic Energy of Canada, according to most optimistic estimates, could be fully privatizated for $600 million if the government decides this year to go through with it. So what we have now is $300 million of taxpayer's dollars -- half of AECL's total commercial value, if you're generous -- going towards completion of a nuclear reactor that might not get sold anywhere unless Ontario can be coaxed into buying one. This, you could argue, is money thrown into the reactor core. Poof! Gone. And even if AECL does make a sale and is itself sold, the buyer walks away with a $300 million injection. Name one venture capitalist willing to invest that much -- or anything -- in nuclear?

Oh, wait a second. Some of that money is going into improving safety at Chalk River. Hmmm... I thought that was already done. In fact, a recent Toronto Star story -- citing experts -- say there's not much more you can do to improve safety of the NRU medical isotope reactor. So claiming this money will improve safety is simply theatre aimed at winning political points after the government mishandled the isotope crisis.

Now let's move to $250 million for CCS, in this case a clean-coal project in Saskatchewan. I fail to understand why government must pay to clean up the mess of industry. Couldn't a carbon tax effectively deal with this problem? What CCS investment does is two things: encourages the use of coal for electricity generation and the exploration of oil through enhanced oil recovery. In isolation, this investment delays real action because the CCS stuff being funded today won't have any impact for a decade, likely two. In the meantime, we'll continue to burn coal and extract oil from the ground at record rates because, hey, CCS is coming so we'll all be okay. Comforting.

And the automakers? Seems every month I hear about new funding being thrown their way aimed at green, energy-efficient vehicle manufacturing. But there doesn't appear to be any conditions, and targets, as part of this funding. Also, it ignores the fact that the technology is already here. Research is nice, but what we need is deployment. Meanwhile, the federal government refuses to validate the safety of low-speed electric vehicles on low-speed public roads, despite the fact that 40 U.S. states allow them. Oh, and the incentive for buying these fuel-efficient vehicles is gone. Now that makes sense.

What's common to all three? Money being thrown at existing industries to help them cope with a changing world they're not willing to adapt to at their own expense and without a bit of kicking and screaming. Fair enough. Perhaps there is justification to toss them a bone. But what about the emerging opportunities? The next GMs and Fords? We're so focused on keeping dinosaurs alive that we're ignoring the potential of those Neanderthals swinging clubs, making wheels and using tools. We're also ignoring the technologies that exist today, are affordable, are relatively easy to implement, and could easily be promoted through creative revenue-neutral tax policies.

This is where the Harper government is most hypocritical. It doesn't want to provide too much help to new, emerging clean-energy technologies and companies because it believes these technologies and companies should be able to compete on their own in the marketplace. At the same time, it gives hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies to the same old group of energy guys who, in most cases, aren't the ones that truly need the helping hand.

Leadership. Vision. A sense of urgency. Not here. Not from the Canadian government.

Earlier this month I wrote a story on an Ottawa-area inventor named Thane Heins who has developed a way to make electric induction motors more efficient, and possibly more -- much more. The article used the words "perpetual motion" to hint at what Heins' believes that "much more" might be. This, not surprisingly, unleashed a firestorm of criticism. But the critics weren't the only ones to respond. In fact, a majority of those I heard from praised Heins for his efforts and encouraged him to go on.

I wrote a followup to this story in today's Toronto Star, which you can find here and here. Click on both links. The second link gives examples of some of the e-mails I received. Some are quite... well, you be the judge.

NOTE: My apologies to the hundreds of people who e-mailed me. Unfortunately, I could not respond to most of you because of the volume.

I'm getting tired of the doomsday views being spouted about biofuels lately, as much as there's an element of truth to them. Yes, biofuels from food or dedicated crops aren't a sustainable strategy, and yes, biofuels from cellulosic ethanol may be years away before they become economical, but is this reason to completely abandon the idea? To call it a scam? I'm also a little perplexed that people talk about biofuel like we're pinning the climate's hopes on it, rather than as part of a much larger solution.

Yes, we're seeing the hunt for palm oil sources devastating the rainforests of Indonesian. Bad. Bad. Bad. Makes for a great headline, eh? Does this suggest biofuels per se are bad or that we need to pay greater attention to how and where we get them? Is it not the government of Indonesia that's responsible for strictly regulating this domestic market? It's like saying we shouldn't use solar power because factories in China are using child labour. Solar isn't the problem -- it's the factory owners. Perhaps OECD countries should impose trade sanctions on any country that doesn't comply with strict environmental standards, as a recent BBC article suggests. A New York Times editorial at least sees the potential for biofuels, pointing out that it can be done if done responsibly.

The same reasoning goes for the energy balance of biofuels. We've seen report after report saying that producing ethanol from corn takes more energy than what you get out of it, and that changing lands to biofuel crops releases carbon into the air. This might be the case in some circumstances, but there are some huge assumptions here about irrigation (water use), fertilizer use, transportation, and they are often analyzed out of context -- that is, not compared apples-to-apples to the way we go about exploring, producing, refinining and transporting oil. Again, regulation can deal with these issues.

You think there isn't an army of scientists out there not trying to catalogue the best raw materials for producing biofuels, the best enzymes and bacteria for breaking them down, the best methods of transporting them, ways of growing on depleted lands, etc...? These are early days in the middle of a dramatic transition, and there are going to be some mistakes -- and much trial and error along the way. To suggest this isn't going to happen, and never happened in the early days of oil and coal, is simply naive.

So let's stop demonizing biofuels. It's at times like these that I'm ashamed of my own industry for oversimplifying the debate with sensational headlines. But I digress.

On a related note, I'd like to say I'm happy to see Richard Branson -- media stunts aside -- trying biofuels in airplanes. Virgin Fuels launched the world's first commercial flight powered by biofuel today and the company appears serious about studying the benefits and, based on that outcome, pursuing the biofuel option. Virgin contends biofuels could be a commercial reality in the airline industry within five years. Personally, I think this is an area we must aggressively pursue. In fact, I think we should devote most of our research and development on biofuels to their use in the airline sector.

Here's my reason: We can't run planes on batteries, so electric planes aren't in the cards. We can run vehicles on electricity, starting with plug-in hybrids as a transition, and there is great momentum at the moment toward this goal. It's my belief that a biofuel industry devoted strictly to fuelling air travel could be done sustainably without having an impact on food prices and, as cellulosic approaches become more affordable, by depending heavily on agricultural and forest waste.

Maybe I'm oversimplifying things, but it seems to me it makes more sense to target particular approaches to particular problems rather than have all approaches try to be all things to all industries.

On a side note, I'll point you to a feature I wrote in the Toronto Star on Saturday looking at Canada's hesitation -- refusal? -- to legalize the use of low-speed electric vehicles on city streets. It's a ridiculous situation, bordering on embarrasing, and shows how governments are not prepared (intellectually, or via political will) to move beyond rhetoric to real action when it comes to climate change.

The Canadian province of British Columbia announced yesterday that it will introduce a carbon tax that will apply to nearly all fossil fuels sold in the province, including gasoline and home heating fuel. The tax will start at $10 (Canadian) per tonne of carbon emissions in 2008 and be increased by increments of $5 annually over the next few years until it reaches $30. The tax will be complemented by a carbon cap-and-trade system that will be introduced as part of B.C.'s alliance with several U.S states and Canadian provinces.

Finally: Leadership.

The province said the tax will be revenue-neutral. About $1.8 billion raised from the tax over the next three years will go toward personal income and business tax cuts. A $100 climate action dividend will also be given to citizens once a year, with the idea being that the money saved from income-tax cuts and returned through the dividend will go toward conservation and improving energy efficiency. Citizens will also get more tax breaks for purchasing fuel-efficient vehicles and appliances.

Now, I should point out that Quebec introduced a carbon tax last year, but the money collected from it goes back to the government and is eventually targeted at green technology initiatives. It's not clear to me whether this approach is more effective or not. I like the idea of a revenue-neutral tax that benefits people who reduce their environmental footprint and penalizes those who increase it, but an income tax cut needs to come with some strings attached or at least some kind of program that encourages investment of those savings into energy efficiency and renewables.

What I like about B.C.'s approach -- and Quebec's before it -- is that they're ignoring the rhetoric coming out of our federal government that a carbon tax will hurt the economy. The Conservative government of Stephen Harper has consistently dismissed the idea of introducing a national carbon tax, and has warned against burdening business with a patchwork of provincial rules and carbon taxes.

The B.C. government's response: "We made the decision to not wait for consensus."

Consensus is the killer. Consensus is what the United Nations is about, and all the international climate meetings that lead to nothing. Consensus is a tool of delay. It's nice to see a government realize that breaking away from the pursuit of consensus is what Canadians -- and I venture to argue most Americans -- truly want. B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell