There's a story in Technology Review about a Halifax, Nova Scotia-based company called Carbon Sense Solutions that has found a way to make precast concrete products CO2-sucking vacuums. The interesting thing about concrete is that over hundreds of years they absorb CO2, a natural process called carbonation. The amount of absorption partially offsets the CO2 emissions that result from the calcination of limestone during the manufacture of cement, which is a key active ingredient of concrete. One problem, however, is that during the earlier stages of carbonation the outer two or three millimetres of the concrete forms a hardened crust that significantly slows down CO2 absorption. What Carbon Sense claims to have done is packed hundreds of years of carbonation into as little as one hour, using a curing process that consumes dramatically less energy than conventional heat/steam curing (see presentation here). In fact, compared to steam curing, company CEO Robert Niven says his approach -- building on 40 years of research at McGill University -- uses up to 44 per cent less energy and 39 per cent less water.

Now, it only works with precast concrete products -- i.e. prefab tunnels, manholes, septic tanks, walls, blocks and beams. Even concrete wind-turbine towers are precast. This represents between 10 to 15 per cent of the North American concrete market, which is predominantly ready-mix (i.e. construction folks mix it and mould it on site). In some European countries, however, precast is closer to 40 per cent of the market. Given we're talking about a $125-billion global market annually, even 10 per cent is a market worth pursuing.

Frankly, it sounds too good to be true, given the cement and concrete industry represent more than 5 per cent of global CO2 emissions and something has to be done about it. If all precast operations used Carbon Sense's process, it would sequester as much as 20 per cent of those emissions in concrete, says Niven. How could this be? Because a precast plant alone wouldn't have enough emissions to feed the process. To maximize CO2 absortion, a precast plant would have to get more CO2 from the flue stacks of neighbouring industrial facilities -- assuming ideal logistics. Niven also says the process could take advantage of a plan, originating from Alberta, to build a CO2 pipeline across Canada that would feed enhanced oil recovery projects and other industrial uses (yeah, when donkeys fly).

There's no shortage of innovative companies tackling the concrete problem. CalStar, Calera, CO2 Solution -- they all have their own interesting twist to greening up concrete's dirty image. Hopefully one of them, 10 or 20 years from now, will prove that they have the secret sauce that matters. Niven says a pilot plant at a precast concrete facility in Nova Scotia should be announced shortly, and there are plans for a second pilot plant with a precast manufacturer in British Columbia.

Niven wouldn't go into too much detail about the process, citing proprietary concerns, so let's just hope the preliminary results from his first two pilot projects go far toward supporting his claims.

Just letting readers know that over the next couple (few?) months I'll be transitioning over from the Blogware platform to Wordpress. Tucows, the Toronto-based software company that owned Blogware, has decided to stop supporting it and is letting it die a slow death. To be fair, they're not booting me off. I've been given fair warning that I need to find another host at some point, so I'm just assuming it should be sooner rather than later. I liked using Blogware, but like anything in life I'm comparing that against not using anything else. So I'm looking forward to trying out Wordpress. Change is good.

Now, I'm told the transition will be relatively smooth. I can preserve all my past posts -- more than three years worth -- and comments, though all past comments will unfortunately be relabelled "anonymous." All links will be preserved, though I'm getting the sense that I may loose some of the pictures associated with past posts -- no biggy. I'm sure there will be some glitches and pain during the transition, but I'll try to make it as smooth as possible.

The most important thing you can do right now is make sure your browser's Favorites list or your blogroll goes to www.cleanbreak.ca, rather than the Blogware URL tyler.blogware.com. The www.cleanbreak.ca address will always been the same, regardless of what platform I use.

I'm toying with the idea of changing the logo, because I'm not sure the current colours match any of the Wordpress themes. I'll try to keep it simple. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Cheers.

P.S. -- the lack of support for Blogware explains why some of you have had problems with the captchas -- i.e. the blurred characters you must enter to have your comments posted. This has been frustrating for many readers here, so the move to Wordpress will eliminate this problem.

Xantrex shares shot up 23 per cent this morning -- reaching their highest point since 2004, the year it went public -- after the company put out a vague press release announcing "it is in exclusive negotiations with respect to the sale of the company." It warned that the negotiations might not be successful.

This isn't surprising. Xantrex was always a success story that investors didn't fully appreciate. The company, after going through some rough times in 2005 and 2006, has been on fire selling its power electronics and inverter products to the solar and wind sectors. Just recently it inked a $5 million inverter deal with SunEdison, though this is just the latest in a string of sales deals with the who's who of the renewable-energy sector. One financial analyst I spoke with said he wouldn't be surprised if the likely buyer is Siemens or Schneider Electric, as clearly some of these bigger companies are looking to gain a stronger foothold in the booming renewable energy sector. After all, when you've got calls for 100 per cent renewable and clean energy on the U.S. grid (Al Gore) or 20 per cent wind power in the U.S. (T. Boone Pickens), the possible outlook for sales is quite impressive.

Looking at the stock, it could turn out to be a $400 million-plus acquisition -- not a big sale by U.S. standards, but given that Xantrex is probably one of the largest and most successful cleantech companies in Canada to date, this is a big deal here. I have to say, I'll be sad to see the reins handed over to a foreign company. Xantrex is truly an all-Canadian cleantech success story.

You have to give credit to 6N Silicon for moving fast. In the two years since this Mississauga-based solar-silicon company was founded (in founder Scott Nichol's basement, I might add), it has raised a whack of dough (More than $26 million at last count, but likely higher) and is now ready to construct its first manufacturing plant in Vaughan, a city just north of Toronto. The Ontario government announced today it is giving $8 million to 6N toward construction of the $50-million plant, which will create 84 new jobs in the province. The politicos are touting it as a sign that green jobs are coming to Ontario, pointing out that many of the workers at the plant will come from the province's struggling automotive sector. Of course, we need to keep in mind that 84 new jobs don't replace thousands lost in the automotive sector. But it's a step in the right direction, similar to the announcement in May that Menova Engineering (maker of combined solar thermal, PV and lighting systems) had taken up space and labour at a Toronto-area automotive tool and die shop that had been hit hard by the automotive downturn.

Now we just have to replicate this 30 to 40 times. But small steps are good. Better than no steps. It wouldn't hurt to expand our attention to offshore wind turbines/components and vehicles batteries, among other "green collar" manufacturing opportunities.

There's no shortage of speculation about EEStor Inc., the Texas-based energy storage company that claims it will change the world with its super-dooper, disruptive, "this changes everything" ultracapactor. But one anonymous blogger has been digging around and is managing to piece together a decent -- although not necessarily accurate -- picture of what's going on at the secretive company. Some have accused this blogger of being Dick Weir, EEStor's media-loathing founder and CEO, or Ian Clifford, CEO and founder of ZENN Motor Co., which is a minority owner in EEStor and has exclusive license to use its technology in certain vehicle applications. But the blogger in question attempted to clear the air today, pointing out he's not an employee of EEStor or ZENN, has no friends at the companies or special relationships. He's just an average joe -- in the D.C. area, I have learned -- interested in the technology and who likes to dig around. A ZENN stock pumper? Impossible to know. But if you're to believe the posting, he seems to be having more success than professional journalists like me. One financial analyst, who has access to EEStor, told me Dick Weir talks to this blogger because, "It amuses him. He gets a kick out of it." There you go.

So what's the latest poop on EEStor from blogger central? You can read it here if you're interested. Some of the points raised I've heard as well, but haven't been able to nail down as fact. But if you're to believe what you read, EEStor is almost done its Web sites, has filed 21 new patents, and is putting a plan together to raise capital that would go toward a seven-fold expansion of its current pilot production line. Apparently the long-awaited permeativity tests, not yet released, have been known for some time. Dick Weir is simply choosing to release the results at the same time as putting up the new Web site and announcing the new patent filings. At which time, he'll be prepared -- and more accepting of -- the flood of questions from media and investors. Can't wait. Certainly, the aim here is to raise a whack of capital, perhaps using ZENN's stock, in reaction to this frenzy, as a proxy for the market value of EEStor.

We shall see. Certainly, if a company like ZENN is to meet its promise of having a highway-speed vehicle based on ZENN's technology within the next two years, EEStor must be making some progress behind the scenes.

First, my take on why now. Obama has already said he'd be keen to give Gore a senior and strategic role in his administration. This indicates that Obama, on the energy and climate file, is prepared to do something bold. So, it makes sense that Gore would come out and float this ambitious bold proposal of his outside of the political arena and well in advance of the run-up to the November election. It gives both Obama and McCain a chance to react, and it gives the public a chance to absorb what Gore is saying -- and having read his speech closely, he has effectively summed up the problem and the solution. If the public generally rejects what Gore is saying, then no damage to Obama and he gets a better sense of what the public is willing to tolerate. If the public is inspired and embraces the challenge, then Obama equally embraces the challenge and, upon being elected, brings Gore on to manage the transition.

Maybe I'm dreaming -- but it makes a whole lot of sense to me.

Here, to me, are some of the most important quotes from Gore's speech:

On economic, environmental and national security concerns

"When we look at all three of these seemingly intractable challenges at the same time, we can see the common thread running through them, deeply ironic in its simplicity: our dangerous over-reliance on carbon-based fuels is at the core of all three of these challenges... We’re borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet. Every bit of that’s got to change... if we grab hold of that common thread and pull it hard, all of these complex problems begin to unravel and we will find that we're holding the answer to all of them right in our hand. The answer is to end our reliance on carbon-based fuels."

"Those those who say the costs (of renewables) are still too high: I ask them to consider whether the costs of oil and coal will ever stop increasing if we keep relying on quickly depleting energy sources to feed a rapidly growing demand all around the world. When demand for oil and coal increases, their price goes up. When demand for solar cells increases, the price often comes down. When we send money to foreign countries to buy nearly 70 percent of the oil we use every day, they build new skyscrapers and we lose jobs. When we spend that money building solar arrays and windmills, we build competitive industries and gain jobs here at home."

On importance of grid modernization

"To be sure, reaching the goal of 100 percent renewable and truly clean electricity within 10 years will require us to overcome many obstacles. At present, for example, we do not have a unified national grid that is sufficiently advanced to link the areas where the sun shines and the wind blows to the cities in the East and the West that need the electricity. Our national electric grid is critical infrastructure, as vital to the health and security of our economy as our highways and telecommunication networks. Today, our grids are antiquated, fragile, and vulnerable to cascading failure. Power outages and defects in the current grid system cost US businesses more than $120 billion dollars a year. It has to be upgraded anyway."

On the link between a smart grid and electric cars

"We could further increase the value and efficiency of a Unified National Grid by helping our struggling auto giants switch to the manufacture of plug-in electric cars. An electric vehicle fleet would sharply reduce the cost of driving a car, reduce pollution, and increase the flexibility of our electricity grid."

On the need for a price on carbon

"We could and should speed up this transition by insisting that the price of carbon-based energy include the costs of the environmental damage it causes. I have long supported a sharp reduction in payroll taxes with the difference made up in CO2 taxes. We should tax what we burn, not what we earn. This is the single most important policy change we can make." (I should point out that in Canada, the opposition Liberals have come up with a "GreenShift" strategy that argues for exactly that)

On how the U.S. political system is f^%$#$ up

"It is only a truly dysfunctional system that would buy into the perverse logic that the short-term answer to high gasoline prices is drilling for more oil ten years from now. Am I the only one who finds it strange that our government so often adopts a so-called solution that has absolutely nothing to do with the problem it is supposed to address? When people rightly complain about higher gasoline prices, we propose to give more money to the oil companies and pretend that they’re going to bring gasoline prices down. It will do nothing of the sort, and everyone knows it. If we keep going back to the same policies that have never ever worked in the past and have served only to produce the highest gasoline prices in history alongside the greatest oil company profits in history, nobody should be surprised if we get the same result over and over again."

On the thirst for change

"I’ve begun to hear different voices in this country from people who are not only tired of baby steps and special interest politics, but are hungry for a new, different and bold approach."

Finally, on the virtue of being a leader

"It is a great error to say that the United States must wait for others to join us in this matter. In fact, we must move first, because that is the key to getting others to follow; and because moving first is in our own national interest."

These are inspirational comments. We'll have to wait and see how the U.S. public reacts.

UPDATE: I've read a lot of blogs, many of them focused on cleantech, that are focusing on the "craziness" of Gore's 10-year target. Is it realistic? Well, let's just say in theory it's not impossible, but in practice it's not likely to happen. But rather than criticize Gore's challenge by focusing on the timeline, I think it's more important to look at why Gore is doing what he's doing. I mean, I'm no expert, but clearly this isn't about laying out a detailed plan that he hopes politicians will adopt and implement. What it's about -- and this is what he achieved in An Inconvenient Truth -- is massaging the public and its perception of what can and should be done. The public wants leadership, and it wants to feel that a difficult path taken can make a difference. Gore himself explained why the target is 10 and not 40 years. Basically, it's because politics and public lose interest after 10 years and longer targets can be too easily forgotten or abandoned. As I've said in comments on other blogs, is it better to run hard for something you believe in for 10 years and fall short of your target, or walk over 40 years and forget what that target was? As I said above, I think Gore is priming the pump -- getting a sense of what people are willing to get behind, and then building on that momentum heading into the November presidential election. So for those focusing on Gore's seemingly crazy 10-year target, well, I think you're missing the point of this exercise.

I've got a story in today's Toronto Star about the frustration of being a Canadian-based geothermal developer forced to find and develop projects in the United States and other countries because of a lack of support for -- and general awareness of -- geothermal in Canada. There are no operating commercial geothermal power facilities in Canada, despite the fact that virtually every other country along the Pacific Rim's "Ring of Fire" has taken advantage of the emission-free resource. There is one, maybe up to three tops, geothermal projects underway or on the drawing board in Canada, but the federal government -- beyond providing a 1 cent production tax credit -- doesn't seem too interested. Instead, according to Sierra Geothermal CEO Gary Thompson, billions of dollars are being committed to back clean coal and carbon capture/storage technologies while country's such as Germany, which has a similar geography to Canada, are forging ahead with enhanced or "engineered" geothermal systems that make geothermal power production possible in less conventional locations. The U.S. is also heading in this direction, most recently expressed by a planned $90 million investment in enhanced geothermal from the Department of Energy.

It's a shame, really. What enhanced geothermal could benefit from is experience in the oil and gas sector, where drilling technologies and techniques developed over the years would be immensely valuable in drilling geothermal wells. Alberta, if it wanted to, could easily leverage those skills and develop geothermal power alongside oil sands development -- and indeed, the heat and potential electricity from geothermal could help reduce the massive carbon footprint of oil sands production, and possibly eliminate the need to build nuclear reactors in the region (which is under serious consideration).

It's likely not to happen, of course. That might make too much sense.

Seems the fear-mongering around ethanol and food prices is serving to kickstart the move toward commercial cellulosic ethanol production, which could prove a good thing. Royal Dutch Shell, already a 26.3 per cent owner in Ottawa-based Iogen, has expanded its stake to 50 per cent and says it is considering investing in a full-scale commercial cellulosic ethanol plant based on Iogen's technology and processes. Shell seems quite serious about the jump to cellulosic, and a scan of the news lately seems to indicate there's a call to action going on -- a concerted effort to accelerate development and commercial implementation of cellulosic approaches to ease fears that rising dependence on corn-based approaches will continue to play havoc will global food prices.

I expect the next half year to be exciting times for developers of cellulosic technologies.

My Clean Break column this week wonders whether the Ontario government really means to backtrack on its ethanol strategy, or simply wants to tweak it so that the jump from a 5 per cent to 10 per cent ethanol mandate is sustainable. Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty made headlines last week after saying he was revising his approach to ethanol because of concerns over its contribution to food price increases. The press and the opposition parties ran with it, many characterizing the comments as a policy flip-flop. That, however, isn't so clear. The 10 per cent mandate, while an election goal, was never to the best of my knowledge articulated in any official policy. But more important, revising or reconsidering doesn't equate to backtracking.

It could be that McGuinty wants to be more cautious moving forward, and this may require that any content increases beyond 5 per cent require a certain percentage of ethanol to come from cellulosic processes. I point out in the column that a good model to follow was just introduced last week in Pennsylvania, where Governor Edward Rendell signed legislation -- the first of its kind from a U.S. state -- stipulating that a 10-per-cent ethanol mandate would only be triggered once in-state cellulosic ethanol production capacity reaches 1.325 billion litres (350 million gallons) a year. "Pennsylvania can be to cellulosic ethanol what corn-based ethanol was to Iowa and the Midwest," said Governor Rendell. "Pennsylvania has an abundant supply of cellulosic ethanol feedstocks, including switchgrass, woodchips, municipal waste and agricultural waste. This alternative fuel law ensures that Pennsylvania farmers and businesses will fully realize the benefits of these resources."

This approach makes a world of sense. Rendell doesn't set dates, so can 't be accused of missing them. Instead, he leaves it up to the industry to trigger the 10-per-cent mandate by encouraging it to reach a production milestone. As I wrote in the column, "Rather than force a market into place, at risk of affecting food prices and having to rely on imports, Pennsylvania seems to have come up with a prudent, sustainable approach to encouraging nonfood ethanol production."

Corn ethanol production in North America isn't causing babies to starve in Africa -- yet. Corn ethanol has nothing to do with scarcity of grain supplies in certain regions of the world. High grain prices have more to do with high oil prices, drought, speculators (and the rush of investment into commodities), and population increases in certain areas of the world. But a rapid expansion of corn ethanol production, beyond what's in place today, does create this risk. It's not sustainable, and even the ethanol industry knows it. The danger, however, is in throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and such a knee-jerk reaction is a very real risk.

Why, you might ask, am I a defender of ethanol and at the same time a great believer in the electrification of transportation? One, if we're going to have plug-in hybrids, we still need gasoline and diesel for longer trips. I think it's better to have E85 blends of gasoline and biodiesel when using range extenders. We also need biofuels for aviation.

This story has been making the rounds in the U.K. over the past week. I was alerted to it by a colleague of mine at the Toronto Star whose father is co-inventor of the system being profiled. Professors Francis Farley (my colleague's dad) and Rod Rainey have designed a 600-foot-long snake-like device -- appropriately called the Anaconda -- that's tethered to the sea bed and wiggles around in the water to produce electricity. It's basically a rubber tube, about 20-feet wide, that is sealed at both ends and filled with water. As waves come in they squeeze the one end of the tube, causing a "bulge wave" to form inside the tube that travels from one end to the other. The bulge builds in size and momentum until it reaches the opposite end of the tube and is forced through a turbine, causing it to spin and generate electricity. There are many wave-energy systems out there, as well as some that also look like snakes, though these are made of metal and have hinges and articulated joints. The Anaconda, on the other hand, is pretty simple in design. Rubber tubing is light and durable, and the set-up is relatively straight forward. The inventors believe it has the potential to be the lowest-cost wave energy system on the market, competing quite well with other forms of renewable energy and some conventional systems.

Each snake would have an estimated capacity of about 1 megawatt. Ideally it is anchored about 120 to 300 feet under the water's surface, probably about a mile offshore. The devices can be grouped in the hundreds, possibly even thousands, creating sub-surface snake farms that would provide baseload power. The inventors predict commercial Anaconda farms could be generating clean, emission-free electricity within the next five years. "Rubber tubes can live forever in the sea," states a Web site that has been set up to describe the system. "Anaconda won't break, no hinges, no joints... and it's cheap!"

"It works best where you have large sea swells generated over long distances," said Tom Roach, project director for Anaconda testing at Southampton University. Work so far has been confined to a small-scale system in the lab, but a larger-scale laboratory is being set up to push the project further, in collaboration with Anaconda's developer Checkmate SeaEnergy.

No doubt, there will be challenges ahead. The ocean is a relentless monster, capable over time of destroying, deteriorating and weakening anything we throw at it -- or in it. These Anaconda systems, if they are to be economic, will need to last at least 20 years in the harsh sea. But given the simplicity of the system's design, it may just succeed where others have so far failed. The Carbon Trust, a private company established and funded by the U.K. government to accelerate development of climate-change technologies, has expressed high hopes for the Anaconda project.

I know a couple of people who have put solar panels on the rooftop of their hybrid cars. In fact, Michael Angemeer, chief executive of a large distribution utility northeast of Toronto called Veridian, drives around town in a plug-in hybrid Prius with rooftop solar. It's a novelty to be sure, but may not be for long. To my surprise, there are reports that Toyota is planning to have solar panels installed atop high-end versions of its next-generation Prius. Now, obviously the panels wouldn't be a major contributor of power, but they would be used to power air conditioning -- thus saving battery power and maintaining fuel economy during hot weather. One report says the solar panels will supply part of the two-to-five kilowatts of power needed for the Prius aircon system. It's unclear whether this would be just for the original Prius, or also for the company's planned plug-in model in 2010.

This tells me two things: first, Toyota must be expecting the price of solar to be coming down; second, Toyota recognizes that some people will pay the extra money because being "green" is cool. Purchasing a Prius with a solar roof is no different today than buying a convertible car or the leather seat option or whatever turns your crank.

Now, this really gets interesting when we see solar on plug-ins and progress with vehicle-to-grid applications. You know, that whole idea of driving to work in an PHEV, plugging in your car while it sits in the parking lot for eight hours, and selling electricity back to the grid? I have to admit, this idea confuses me a bit. Why would somebody drain their battery while at work? Wouldn't this mean poorer fuel economy while driving home? A solar roof, on the other hand, gets around this. Basically your car sells solar power to the grid while it sits around all day. Multiply that by hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of cars, and it adds up.

I know this is far off, but Toyota adding solar to the roof of its Prius is a meaningful step in this way-cool evolution, and I have no doubt there's a contingent of consumers out there who wouldn't think twice about buying one. I also have no doubt that GM, Honda and others will be forced to follow.

I know wind energy on its own really shouldn't be pitted against nuclear, but ultimately any article touting the benefits of wind technology and the need to embrace even more wind -- including offshore -- sparks response from anti-wind or pro-nuke folks (or both) who immediately shoot down the usefulness and cost of wind. I get a lot of such e-mails, so I figured I'd play devil's advocate here and post a few of the most common points that poke holes in the wind-energy movement. Many of them are valid questions that need honest responses. I'm posting them here to spark some friendly discussion, since readers of this blog tend to be much more informed on these issues than yours truly. Please keep responses to economics and effectiveness. Moral hangups about nuclear, including proliferation and waste management issues (i.e. what we do with all that toxic waste), don't equate to a defense of wind. Likewise, the impact of wind turbines on birds and bats and community resistance to wind turbines because of possible noise or aesthetics don't equate to a defense of nuclear.

Here goes:

1) Wind farms are only designed to last 20 to 25 years, while nuclear plants are designed to last up to 60 years. This means when calculating the cost of wind per installed megawatt the true cost, when comparing to nuclear, should be doubled or tripled. True? Not true? Explain.

2) Estimates of load factor for proposed wind farms, both onshore and offshore, too often fail to match reality. This makes wind even less economical compared to nuclear. True? Not true? Explain.

3) While Germany and Denmark are often cited as success stories for wind in terms of job and industry creation, these countries have had difficulty integrating wind into their grid mix. True? Not true? Explain.

4) Wind variability also affects useability of power -- i.e. the power produced can't be accepted into the grid, forcing curtailment by operators. So even if the wind is blowing we don't necessarily use the energy. True? Not true? Explain.

5) The cost of wind is higher if you include need for shadow generation to cover times when the wind isn't blowing. Should this cost be included? Or, depending on the market/jurisdiction, can existing generation manage the intermittency? For example: Ontario wants to get off coal so needs to build natural gas plants anyway. Wouldn't adding wind mean these plants (and whatever coal we still have) operate less frequently?

6) Natural gas plants that can shadow wind output are generally less efficient because of their need to be highly flexible. This inefficiency offsets any gains (i.e. in terms of greenhouse gas reductions) made by adding wind generation into the mix. True? Not true? Explain.

7) Denmark and Germany tout the benefits of wind only to support growth of their wind industries and technology export to foreign markets, not because it's a superior form of power generation. True? Not true? Explain.

8) Cost increases faced by the nuclear industry are affecting all industries, including wind. True? Not true? Explain.

9) Even excluding nuclear, there are better and more economic alternatives out there than wind -- i.e. conservation, efficiency -- and this is where our money should be going. True? Not true? Explain.

So there you go. Let the debate begin! One thing I will say: Many of the shortfalls of wind have much to do with grid design and our inability to store wind energy so we can smooth out output. We end up shoe-horning wind projects into an inflexible electricity system built over a 100 years to serve massive centralized plants. This might not be the case 10, 20 years from now. So do we want to lock ourselves, and our financial resources, into a 60-year nuclear plant that takes up to 10 years to build, or invest in grid technologies that allow us to more easily accommodate wind and benefit from its potential?

Also -- and I think this will always been an issue -- nuclear is forever one major accident away from being a non-option. In a way it's like playing Russian Roulette with our energy system.

Okay, enough from me. Over to you.

Like the little engine that could, Quebec-based Railpower Corp. continues to build back momentum after past setbacks. The company announced this week that its RP20BD locomotive, a multi-purpose hybrid used for road and yard switching, got top grades from five California shortline operators after several months of demonstrations.

"With a 3-to-2 replacement ratio, the RP20BD units can perform almost twice the work of a conventional locomotive, depending on application and horsepower requirements, all the while reducing fuel consumption by up to 45 per cent," Railpower said in a statement.

Modesto & Empire Traction Company said the Railpower locomotive "easily performed the work of three of our GE 600 horsepower locomotives" and offered average fuel savings of over 40 per cent compared to their existing GE fleet. Central California Traction Company saw 47 per cent fuel savings compared to the combined operation of two older diesel locomotives (SW1500) built by General Motors. Fuel savings of 56 per cent were achieved when compared to another General Motors locomotive (GP18). In general, NOx and particulate matter are reduced by more than 80 per cent.

Railpower said shortline operators, which have rapidly aging fleets and limited budgets, can see big savings by replacing those older locomotives with its hybrid model. This is particularly true as the price of oil inches toward $150 a barrel. Now, all Railpower needs are some orders (See previous post on plans to build manufacturing facility near Montreal).

Greenfield Ethanol, Canada's largest ethanol producer, and gasification-system developer Enerkem announced this afternoon that they will jointly build and operate (and possibly own?) what they're claiming will be the world's first industrial-scale facility dedicated to converting municipal solid waste into ethanol. The $70 million plant is expected to be in operation by the end of 2010, and based on past presentations from Enerkem will process 100,000 metric tons of MSW per year -- i.e. the residual stuff that's left over and would otherwise go to landfill after recycling and composting. It will initially produce 36 million litres a year of ethanol (nearly 10 million gallons a year). The City of Edmonton, which is the capital of Alberta, has signed a 25-year contract with Greenfield/Enerkem to supply residual MSW to the plant. It's unclear what kind of tipping fee Greenfield/Enerkem will get, but Enerkem claims its process is competitive with current landfilling costs, substantially reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and can divert more than 90 per cent of residual MSW from landfills.

The race is on. Rivals, such as Khosla Ventures-backed Coskata, have set similar targets. Coskata has plans to have a 50 million to 100 million gallon plant up and running by late 2010/early 2011. What's interesting about the Edmonton project is that the municipality initially wanted to use the Enerkem process, under license to provincial utility Epcor, to produce syngas that would be used to produce electricity. But they decided, and it appears rather quickly, that producing ethanol made more sense economically than producing electricity. It begs the question for other municipalities that may be considering the electricity route.

What I like about this Edmonton project (and similar projects in the pipeline) is that it bypasses pretty much all the criticism currently around producing ethanol from food crops. It also eliminates a lot of transportation from the equation. Fact is, corn ethanol facilities tend to be located in the country where the corn is located, requiring lots of transportation to bring the corn to the facility, and then to take the ethanol to market. But producing ethanol from local MSW means the plant can be located near an existing landfill, so it adds virtually nothing to the transportation of feedstock. One can even envision mining the current landfill for feedstock, though I guess you wouldn't get a tipping fee for that. And because the ethanol is produced near the city, it doesn't have to go far to market. In Edmonton, greenhouse-gas reductions from the 25-year project will be the equivalent of taking 12,000 cars off the road.

My Clean Break column today takes a look at the rising interest in industrial-scale heat recovery technologies as pulp and paper, food and beverage, biofuel and a range of other companies cope with rising fossil fuel prices. Tim Angus, president and CEO of Ottawa-based Thermal Energy, estimates that a third -- up to $1 billion -- in oil and gas used in industrial boilers and dryers in Ontario is lost in the form of waste heat. He says it's possible to capture up to 80 per cent of that heat and redirect it to industrial processes. Alternatively, companies such as Ormat Technologies are helping some industries turn that heat into electricity. I posted about Thermal Energy recently, but this column takes a closer look at the opportunity and why interest in heat recovery technologies is, well, heating up.

Multibrid, the German maker of the M5000 offshore wind turbine that is majority owned by French nuclear giant Areva, says it wants to build a turbine manufacturing plant in North America and believes Ontario is an ideal location. A Multibrid representative told reporters in Toronto today that there are 22 offshore wind projects proposed in North America, many of them to be located in the Great Lakes. He said southern Ontario is centrally located, has good highway, rail and waterway access through the St. Lawrence, has local steelmaking capacity, and has a skilled manufacturing base that makes it a strong candidate for a plant.

A recent report from Helimax Energy Inc. estimated there are 64 offshore wind sites on the Ontario side of the Great Lakes alone, representing 35,000 megawatts of development potential. To make Ontario even more attractive, Trillium Power -- a Toronto company that wants to develop a 750 MW wind farm in Lake Ontario, and possibly a second of equal size -- has created a buying consortium called Tai Wind. The consortium includes Trillium and Fisherman's Energy of New Jersey, which is proposing two offshore projects off the coasts of Massachusetts and New Jersey. So far, Tai Wind represents a potential of 300 turbine purchases, but it is in talks with six other offshore developers about joining the consortium. With enough potential orders under its belt, Tai Wind hopes to assure Multibrid that there's enough demand in the market to justify building its plant in Ontario. At the same time, consortium members would be assured easier access to offshore turbines that would otherwise have to come from Europe at greater expense and after a lengthy wait. As a developer, said Kourtoff, "you're simply not going to get an offshore turbine unless you get a manufacturer here."

Joshua Magee, a wind energy analyst with Emerging Energy Research, told me earlier that the idea of creating a buying consortium in North America for offshore wind turbines is an interesting strategy. "It would certainly be unique," he said.

If Ontario wants the manufacturing -- and after watching our automotive and forestry sectors get pummelled, believe me, it does -- then it likely has to approve and sign a PPA for the Trillium project in Lake Ontario or some other Great Lakes offshore project. This would show its commitment to offshore, and give Multibrid some degree of certainty for local turbine demand. If the government isn't prepared to purchase offshore wind power (and soon), one can only guess that Multibrid will look to other jurisdictions more willing to act. I just spoke this evening with Donna Cansfield, Ontario's minister of natural resources, and she said she's excited about the potential investment from Multibrid and is confident the government is ready to talk business.

Time, of course, is off the essence. If Ontario doesn't jump I'm sure Michigan, or New York, or Ohio would be more than willing to welcome Multibrid. And indeed, there's nothing stopping these states from trying to pre-empt any move to Ontario with attractive incentives. One thing for certain is that offshore wind in the Great Lakes is now in play, and it is Ontario's opportunity to lose.

Chrysalix Energy has led a multimillion-dollar investment in a Dutch-based maker of ultrafast battery chargers aimed at electric cars and plug-in hybrids. Epyon B.V., a spinout from the Delft University of Technology, has a "supercharge" technology it says can reduce the charge time of lithium-ion battery packs up to 20-fold. "Clearly, the bottleneck up to now has been the speed of re-charging and that is exactly what Epyon is good at," said Rene Savelsberg, managing director and CEO of SET Venture Partners, a European affiliate to Chrysalix.

Epyon's computer controlled, lightweight charger would reduce from five hours to 15 minutes the length of time it takes to charge up an electric vehicle's battery pack. This would make it possible to begin adding quick-charge stations at existing gas stations, giving electric car owners the freedom of travelling longer distances without fear of running out of juice. Other companies, such as Vancouver-based AccelRate, are also working on quick-charge systems but still have some way to go. AccelRate currently claims it can reduce a five-hour lithium ion charge down to an hour. Even so, few people would be willing to sit at a charge station for an hour during a long drive.

As we get closer to 2010, when GM, Toyota and others are expected to come out with competing plug-in vehicles, the debate over quick-charge versus battery-swapping will continue to intensify. Shai Agassi, founder and CEO of Project Better Place, envisions a network of battery swap stations located throughout a country. Drivers of electric cars would become members of this network, paying a subscription just as they would for mobile phone coverage. Israel and Denmark have so far backed the idea. It should be noted, however, that Agassi isn't against a charging infrastructure (and makes this clear on his Web site). And that's probably a good things, as most experts I've spoken with say ultrafast charging is the future of electric transportation.

My Clean Break column today is an overview of the Progressive Automotive X-Prize competition and an unlikely entrants among the more than 60 teams that have registered. Neil Young, the Canadian rocker who gave us classics such as "Old Man" and "Heart of Gold," has teamed up with ride-pimpin' mechanic Johnathan Goodwin and a team of engineers who have converted Young's beloved 1959 Lincoln Continental into an electric car. Called team Linc Volt, they plan to prove that you can be efficient and good to the environment without sacrificing size and comfort. In the case of this Lincoln, it's a 19-foot giant, which will no doubt stand out in the crowd as it races more futuristic cars for the $10-million X-Prize.

The main column is here. I also have a small sidebar detailing Young's interest in a superefficient generator developed by Thane Heins, who I wrote about here. You'll recall that Heins believes he has violated the law of energy conservation with his invention, which Young believes could have application to his electric Lincoln.

NOTE: For the best story written so far on the Linc Volt venture, the Wichita Eagle has a great feature published on June 1. Apparently the reporter just showed up at the shop where Young and Goodwin were working on the car. They were reluctant to be interviewed, but eventully invited the reporter in. Part of the reluctance, I think (beyong the fact that Young generally stays clear of the media) is that he's also filming his own documentary of the Linc Volt conversion and its participation in the X-Prize, so presumably he doesn't want to steal his own thunder.

So, the U.S. Department of Energy is committing $30 million to General Motors, Ford and General Electric to help them make plug-in hybrid vehicles commercially viable by 2016. Ooh. Ahh. Humbug.

Are they serious? Just $30 million toward a technology that's supposed to be a key pillar in America's fight against climate change, and its quest to wean itself from foreign oil? Google, an Internet search company, is spending more than this. And 2016? It's an odd target, given that GM and some of its competitors plan to have plug-in electrics on the road by 2010. Perhaps the key word is "viable." I don't know. Or maybe the White House is confusing plug-ins with hydrogen fuel cells. Hmmm.

I've love to go on a further rant about this, but Chuck Squatriglia at Wired.com does such a good job I'd encourage you to read what he has to say about the DOE's investment. Here's a sample: "What'd it do -- scrounge change from couch cushions in the Pentagon?" Or maybe the couch cushions in the reception area at Exxon.

On a somewhat related note: It looks like GM is going to decide over the next few weeks which battery technology will go into its Volt car. Will it be LG Chem or Continental/A123? Tough to say, but I think whatever the outcome both companies have a sunny future. More interesting is that GM is reportedly already in talks with various utilities about what to do with battery packs from its cars after they've reached the end of their useful life. In a vehicle, that useful life doesn't mean the battery pack is completely useless -- it's just not ideal for use in a vehicle. "GM wants the Volt battery to run at least 150,000 miles and last 10 years. But even after its projected life in the car, engineers estimate that the batteries would still have between 70 percent and 80 percent of their power remaining," according to Reuters. "That opens the possibility that a utility could stitch together hundreds or thousands of recycled units to store power and send it back to the electric grid at times of peak demand." And then there's the added benefit of having all those batteries in the same place when they do eventually become useless. That will make it much easier for cost-effective recycling. It's encouraging to see companies taking more of a holistic view of things these days.

On another somewhat related note: Did anyone notice that Electrovaya's shares shot up 37 per cent on Friday? Curious. Maybe it's beginning to get traction with its lithium-ion battery technology, and by that I mean following through on recent announcements re: manufacturing in India, the release of a low-speed vehicles, and a partnership with Malcolm's Bricklin's Visionary Vehicles. That said, without an announcement to explain the jump it stinks of insider trading.

Lafarge North America Inc., the continent's largest maker of cement, hasn't made many friends within environmental groups. In Ontario, for example, the company has aggressively pursued a plan to burn old tires to provide energy for its cement-making operations. While there's much debate over the value of doing this -- some, including the U.S. Department of Energy, argue that burning rubber tires is better environmentally than burning coal or oil -- clearly the idea of burning tires rather than recycling them into other useful products is frowned upon by many.

Perhaps in an attempt to green up its image, Lafarge announced this week it has partnered with Kingston, Ont.-based Performance Plants Inc., a biotech firm that has patented processes for growing certain non-food crops and grasses on unproductive farmland and with the ability to withstand extended droughts and heat waves. Under its four-year partnership with Performance Plants, Lafarge will grow and develop clean-energy biomass grasses and woods for use as fuel at its cement plant in Bath, Ontario. "Our challenges with biomass and biofuel energy are maximization of crop yields, crop consistency and cost efficiency," explains Peter Matthewman, president of Performance Plants. "This is where our technology will be instrumental to develop next generation seeds that are customized for specific industrial users looking for alternative clean energy sources."

Lafarge says non-food grass crops were planted in late May and early June on 25 acres of land near its Bath cement plant. Perennial species, such as Miscanthus and switchgrass, were planted alongside sorghum and maize. A local farmer in the area who leases the land from Lafarge is overseeing the crops and will harvest it for the plant. Later in the season they plan to plant willow and industrial hemp. Once harvested, the biomass will be processed into fuel pellets and used at the Lafarge plant to fire its cement kiln. The company said it expects to conduct the first trial burn in fall 2009.

What I like about this approach, assuming the company is serious, is that it creates a local fuel supply chain. The crops are grown near the plant, reducing the need to transport old tires or fossil fuels. And it's using land that's otherwise useless for growing food crops. It would be nice to see this approach replicated across other industrial sites throughout the continent where possible. It would be ever better if companies such as CO2 Solution could come up with an economical way for industrial users to capture their CO2 output and convert it into products such as baking soda or calcium carbonate. This would make what Lafarge is doing a carbon-negative proposition.

Let's just hope it's not greenwashing.

UPDATE: Lafarge's attempts to stop an environmental hearing that is looking into the company's plan to burn tires has been rejected by an Ontario Divisional Court. Looks like Lafarge, faced with mounting scrutiny of its tire-burning plan in Ontario, may be wise to aggressively pursue its biomass strategy.

Given that oil is over $130 a barrel and gas prices are above $4 a gallon, I figured it was time to test out a plug-in Prius. A123/Hymotion was kind enough to lend me one of their retrofitted cars last week, and I have to say it was an enjoyable and insightful experience. I detail my experience in my latest Clean Break column. Apologies for U.S. readers -- the column discusses fuel economy as "Litres per 100 km" rather than MPG.

What I can tell you is that five of the six days I drove the car I got 100 MPG or higher fuel economy, and on some trips got over 200 MPG and even 300 MPG a couple of times. I found that driving behaviour improves with each day and you learn to use more of the electric battery than the engine, and develop techniques for doing so. The only sub-100 MPG day was when I had a 155-mile drive north of Toronto and back. I logged 55 MPG that day. Otherwise, my driving was mainly 5 or 10 mile hops around the city (I'm an urban dweller), which is perfect for a plug-in vehicle. I used a bit more than a quarter of a tank of gas and only $3.83 worth of electricity (and associated charges) during my six day trial. Most of the gas was used during my one-day trek to the country.

A couple of points. To use electric mode as much as possible you're forced to drive less aggressively. It's difficult at first, but after a while it becomes natural and is actually more relaxing. In fact, I realized that if everybody just drove the speed limit, learned to coast to stop signs and traffic lights, and didn't accelerate toward every traffic light, the streets would be safer and we'd all save oodles of fuel. Using this car also made me realize the importance have having real-time feedback on fuel economy. This isn't unique to the plug-in model, as the Prius and other hybrids have this as well. But it made me wonder: Why aren't all cars mandated to have this feature? I mean, if we're promoting energy displays for the home as a way to spark conservation, why not put them in the car to encourage better driving habits and fuel savings?

Wouldn't this be a simple and inexpensive thing to do? Perhaps there are after-market products for this already. If not, I see an interesting business opportunity.

BTW: Readers of this blog obviously have high regard for all-electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles. Of the 124 people who have so far voted in my blog poll (see lower right-hand side of main page), 48 per cent said they would purchase an all-electric given the opportunity, while 32 per cent preferred to buy a plug-in hybrid. Only 8 per cent wanted a fuel cell car, while a surprising 2 per cent said they'd purchase a conventional hybrid. Flex-fuel cars also got lower votes, with just 4 per cent supporting the biofuel path. The bottom line: 80 per cent are in favour of plug power!

It didn't get nearly as much coverage as it should have in North America, so it's worth highlighting again that the U.K. government approved a plan last week to build up to 25,000 megawatts of offshore wind capacity by erecting up to 7,000 massive wind turbines within 11 ocean "zones" surrounding the British coastline. This ambitious 12-year plan has been criticized by some, but is generally supported by many environmental, wind and anti-wind groups in the United Kingdom. The government hopes that the early commitment will provide wind developers with confidence to make investments in the projects.

If the wind capacity is built, it would bring to 33,000 megawatts the total amount of offshore wind capacity planned off the British coastline. Taking into account offshore's capacity factor, which because of a much strong and consistent wind regime is much better than onshore wind, this would be enough renewable energy to meet half the electricity demands of a province the size of Ontario.

Offshore wind is the next frontier for wind energy, and this U.K. announcement focuses attention on what North American governments are doing (or aren't doing) to study and support offshore development. Already, there are ambitious proposals to build offshore wind farms on the U.S. east coast, Canada's northwest coast and in Lake Ontario and Lake Michigan. Given the enormous demand for turbines that will be created in the U.K., on top of demand in continental Europe, it wouldn't be surprising if North American projects are stalled in their tracks because of difficulty getting turbines. It will be interesting to see which of the offshore turbine manufacturers takes the early initiative by setting up shop in Canada or the United States, where they could establish an early foothold on offshore turbine orders.

One thing that's true is that North American projects will benefit from the experience gained from the U.K. projects. On the other hand, this means dependence on imported skills and technology.

RenewableEnergyWorld.com has an interesting story about the geothermal boom going on in Germany. And we're not talking the low-temperature heat pump geothermal that can cool and heat homes, we're talking geothermal power plants. The rising interest in geothermal power in a country like Germany is particularly interesting, because like many parts of Canada and the United States, Germany doesn't have what you'd consider ideal geothermal resources. There are no geysers, no shallow heat spots, and problems with porosity in rock. Yet this hasn't stop the country from raising the bar on geothermal development, going to deeper depths and engineering the proper conditions to allow for so-called enhanced geothermal systems. According to the article:

More plants — some as big as 8-10 MW — are due to go into operation in 2009-2010 in Sauerlach, Dürrnhaar, Riedstadt, Speyer, Gross Schoenebeck and Mauerstetten. And looking 3 to 5 years ahead, there could be more than a hundred plants. About 150 geothermal power plant projects are in the pipeline representing an investment of 4 billion euros, according to the German government.

The biggest problem is finding the equipment for drilling, but the German industry is gearing up to meet the demand. So what's sparking this geothermal boom? The German government, like it did for wind and solar, has established a feed-in tariff for development of geothermal power plants that guarantees payment of about 23 cents per kilowatt hour -- much less than what's paid for solar, and this is for an emission-free baseload resource.

I recently wrote about attempts at enhanced geothermal in North America, led by Susan Petty of Altarock Energy. Altarock is backed by Kleiner Perkins and Khosla Ventures, and has some of the top engineers and project developers in the field pushing the concept forward. In an interview for an article I did for the Toronto Star, Petty said geothermal could be economically developed in Ontario today at 18 cents per kilowatt-hour. She added that as we get more experience with such plants the cost could become competitive with nuclear and fossil fuels within the decade. But, of course, it seems Ontario and the rest of North America are content getting their butts kicked by Germany and others who have the vision to start early. When we do finally get our act together, who are we going to call for help and technology? Germany, perhaps?

We've all heard about the potential -- and huge benefits -- of recovering waste heat from industrial processes. But for some reason this easy, quick payback approach to reducing energy consumption hasn't taken off the way it should. It's perplexing, really. We're talking about free energy. An Ottawa-based company called Thermal Energy International announced this week it had entered into a heat-recovery agreement with a major North American paper company. The $20 million contract will see Thermal Energy install, own and operate its waste heat recovery system. It receives fixed payments over the life of the contract, which is more than paid for by the savings the paper company gets on its energy bill. The paper mill essentially puchases the recovered heat from Thermal Energy at a discount rate that will result in more than $40 million in total fuel oil savings over the life of the eight-year contract. It could be more as oil prices continue to rise. "This represents the first phase of a multisite agreement involving the deployment of Thermal Energy's heat recovery technologies across five sites," Thermal Energy said. "Initial estimates show the project would reduce fuel oil consumption by 105,000 barrels per year with commensurate annual emission reductions of 55,000 tons of CO2, and 625 tons of SO2 -- equivalent to permanently removing more than 13,000 automobiles from the road," said the company, adding that as oil prices continue to rise it's seeing the scale of its projects get larger. No kidding.

It used to be that upfront capital is what prevented struggling industries from taking the plunge and doing energy-saving retrofits. But they no longer have this excuse, with companies such as Thermal Energy essentially paying for the system, installing it and earning the money and return on its investment back through the energy savings of the client. Of course, the father of recycled power and recycled heat is Thomas Casten, founder and chairman of Recycled Energy Development (and founder of previous similarly focused companies). I've met and spoken with Casten a few times and the man is passionate about this area, and at the same time frustrated that jurisdictions don't do a better job of promoting and supporting the recycling of industrial energy that otherwise gets dumped out a flu stack. Read a great Q&A with Casten at Gristmill. Here's one telling quote from Casten: "We have calculated that recycling industrial energy in large plants produces 72 times as much carbon reduction per dollar as a solar collector. Dollars will always be scarce. At the end of the day, what we need to do is get the maximum bang for the buck. So a dollar spent on recycling energy produces about 70 times as much C02 reduction as a dollar on solar, and about 15 times as much reduction as a dollar spent on a wind turbine." Joe Romm over at Climate Progress has an excellent post on the potential of recycled energy, including combined heat and power (cogeneration) systems. It's worth the read.

A group of five young professionals from a Vancouver-based organization called Action Canada wants the Canadian government to back the creation of a Green Bond that would guarantee a modest return on investment and assure a steady flow of money into green technologies and projects. You can read a 41-page summary of their ambitious proposal here. The group describes it as a "modern-day Victory Bond for the environment -- purchased by Canadians, backed by government, managed by the private sector, and designed to accelerate the rollout of sustainable energy." They think Canadians will jump at it. "It's simple, politically sexy, and we have every reason to believe it will be wildly popular." Apparently the federal government is taking a serious look, and so they should. It has been successful in the European Union, which launched a "climate awareness bond" in 2007 that has so far raised $1.5 billion for renewable energy projects. It seems like a perfect way for people who feel powerless against a global climate menace to help fund some positive change while getting a little in return for their investment. With one caveat: it has to be managed responsibly and have enough checks and balances to make sure money doesn't flow to a select groups of companies and projects -- some of them suspect -- who benefit from the right political connections.

Railpower Technologies Corp., once a high-flying cleantech play, has struggled of late and continues to play in penny-stock waters waiting for the tide to lift its fortunes. Oil above $130 a barrel helps, given the company is in the business of making hybrid locomotives for railyards that significantly reduce emissions and fuel consumption. But a number of expensive recalls on its first round of sales has left it with a confidence deficit, so the only hope for this company is for sales to move beyond a trickle and into a strong momentous flow. Railpower, based in Quebec, has had some help from the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan, which invested $35 million in the company earlier this year and just announced it's throwing in another $20 million, in the form of a convertible debenture, to help Railpower build a manufacturing facility near Montreal. The new plant will lead to 125 new jobs, but more importantly it allows the company to bring quality control under its belt and improve manufacturing efficiencies, not to mention margins. It's a good sign, if only because the injection from a conservative pension fund is a vote of confidence that the company -- while it struggled as many startups do -- has a good product at a good time for an industry about to face tightened emission limits. General Electric is also in this game, and others, though they have focused more on longer range locomotives. Railpower has a niche business, but it's also venturing into new territory, whether it's hybrid tugboats or hybrid loading crains. What the company really needs is to follow up this latest announcement with a major sale or two, which would indicate that railway customers haven't given up on the company.

It's a pilot project for now, but one that could expand across the province. Ontario's largest transmission/distribution utility, Hydro One, has partnered with local utilities in the communities of Mississauga, Brampton and York Region to test out a zero-interest loan program -- called the PowerHouse Initiative -- that supports the use of residential renewable-energy systems. Homeowners in the area can get access to zero-interest loans ranging from $2,000 to $50,000, or a rebate for installing qualifying solar PV, solar hot water, geothermal and small-wind systems. If the one-year program is successful and broadly expanded, this could have a dramatic impact on renewable-energy adoption in Ontario.

The repayment period for the loan depends on the size. Loan that are around $2,000 to $5,000 must be paid back in three years. A $50,000 loan can be repaid in up to 10 years. Alternatively, a customer can opt for a rebate instead -- 10 per cent for the first $5,000 of project cost, followed by 15 per cent for the next $15,000 and 20 per cent on the next $30,000. It doesn't completely eliminate the barriers to adoption, but it goes a long way toward helping.

A report today from CIBC World Markets says the skyrocketing cost of transportation is leading to inflation and taking away the edge that many Asian countries have had in offering cheap labour. The end result, as oil approaches $200 a barrel, is what the bank sees as a deglobalization of world markets. The report finds that the cost of shipping a standard 40-foot container from East Asia to North America's east coast has tripled since 2000 and is expected to double again as oil reaches $200 a barrel. In 2000 it cost roughly $3,000 to ship a standard container from Shanghai to North America's east coast, including inland transportation. That was when oil was $20 a barrel. Today that cost is $8,000 and at $200 a barrel it soars to $15,000. Jeff Rubin, CIBC's chief economist, said if this were translated into a tariff it would represent an 11 per cent trade tariff today on goods coming to North America, and a 15 per cent tariff when oil reaches $200.

This, the bank argues, threatens decades of trade liberalization and will force some overseas manufacturing to relocate closer to home. "Higher energy prices are impacting transport costs at an unprecedented rate," says Rubin. "So much so that the cost of moving goods, not the cost of tariffs, is the largest barrier to global trade today."

It must be forcing companies such as Wal-Mart to rethink their business. Business decisions in the future, argues Rubin, will be based on finding the cheapeset labour force within a reasonable shipping distance to a destination market. It sure makes Mexico look good. At $200 a barrel, it will cost three times as much to ship an item from China as it will from Mexico. Rubin points to the steel market to illustrate his point. Steel exports from China to the U.S. are falling 20 per cent year over year, while U.S. domestic steel production has increased 10 per cent. It's no wonder wind-turbine makers are looking to establish themselves in North America, rather than build in Europe or China and ship across the ocean.

This fact -- this renewed appreciation of domestic production -- could mean happy days ahead for American and Canadian startups who in the past have had their innovations stolen and replicated at low cost overseas, then shipped back into North America. Battery makers, solar manufacturers, electronics makers in North America could suddenly find themselves more competitive. It could also mean better days ahead for North America's struggling automotive sector, if it can adapt to the need for more efficient vehicles that don't necessarily burn gasoline. And if unions can adapt as well.

But one thing is for certain: It won't lead to lower prices. It just means goods from China, benefitting from cheap oil in the past, are now on more even cost-footing with North American rivals. Consumers are still going to feel the pinch of inflation over the coming years. And, it should be pointed out, the effect is a two-way street. North American manufacturers will find it too costly to sell into Asia markets without setting up their own manufacturing facilities in the region they wish to sell into. Likewise, the Chinese and other East Asian countries may get to the point where it makes more economic sense to build manufacturing in Canada or the United States and populate the plants with their own countrymen.