Map Scopes Region's Power Future
Plans for BC, Alberta and eleven states to produce and export renewable energy.
Portion of WREZ map showing renewable energy opportunities.
The provincial government has scoped out nine regions for large-scale wind and hydro development in British Columbia, part of an international plan to build and export renewable electricity across western North America.
It's called the Western Renewable Energy Zones (WREZ) initiative, and while in the early stages yet, experts say this plan could have significant implications for renewable energy development in B.C.
WREZ was launched in March 2008 by the U.S. Department of Energy and the Western Governors' Association. Eleven U.S. states, parts of Mexico, British Columbia and Alberta are participating.
According to its website, the goal of WREZ is to "expedite the development and delivery of electricity generated by renewable energy."
Despite that green stated aim, the mapping process is creating controversy among some environmentalists in B.C. who say it's a blueprint for cross-hatching the region with power lines and roads in order to feed, rather than curtail, society's growing hunger for energy.
Draft map is online
Essentially, the plan is this: identify the areas in each jurisdiction that have potential for large-scale renewable energy development, and then develop a conceptual transmission plan to deliver energy from these zones to wherever it's needed.
It's conceptual, because these zones will have no regulatory or legal status attached to them, nor is there any certainty that a transmission line will be built to accommodate them.
However, the B.C. Utilities Commission is leading an inquiry to determine province-wide transmission needs for the next 30 years, and experts say the WREZ process will play a role.
"It's quite clear the BCUC is going to be using the outcome of this process as a significant information input," says Nicholas Heap, climate change policy analyst for the David Suzuki Foundation.
"It takes longer to build a transmission line than it does to build a renewable energy generation station," says Heap. "You have to know where the renewable generation is going to be before anybody proposes it."
Phase one of the WREZ initiative has identified the types and locations of resources in B.C. suitable for large-scale development. A draft map of these so-called qualified resources areas (QRAs) can be found on this website.
Enviros helped us: Western Governors spokesperson
The QRA's were determined by a WREZ working group with "broad-based participation" from industry and environmental groups, says Karen Deike, communications director for the Western Governors' Association.
Monique Stevenson of SeaBreeze Power Corp. and Ed Higginbottom, senior strategy advisor for the B.C. Transmission Corporation are the two B.C. members of this working group.
It identified nine areas in this province with "a high density of developable renewable energy resources," according to draft documents. These areas represent a total of 17,310 MW of wind energy and 9,127 MW of hydro energy potential.
(According to the Ministry of Energy, at least 1,500 MW of potential wind, solar or hydro power within a 100 kilometres radius constitutes high density.)
Controversial river power projects on map
One of those areas is the Sunshine Coast, where development is already under way on the first of a suite of run-of-river projects dubbed the green power corridor.
The second of these, the Bute Inlet project, attracted a lot of media attention after hundreds of citizens showed up at three environmental assessment hearings this past month (hundreds more have submitted written comments to the environmental assessment office.
"There are areas that should not be developed because the ecosystem values would be too much affected," says Nicholas Heap, climate change policy analyst for the David Suzuki Foundation. "There are others where we believe that development can and should go ahead."
When asked what those beliefs were based on, Heap said the foundation does not have any specific areas in mind but said the group has been participating in the planning process to make sure the WREZ initiative does identify areas "that have high energy output but a low impact on the land."
"Our society uses a lot of energy, it will continue to use energy as we grow and we need to get that energy from somewhere," he says.
"We can't have power development without any impact at all."
Energy conservation instead: UBC's Rees
William Rees, a professor in UBC's school of community and regional planning, says concerns about climate change have taken undue precedence over other ecological concerns.
"Just because something is renewable doesn't mean it's the best thing to do if there are better options. I would argue that we could generate more energy by conservation than can produce by increasing supplies."
"We're very close to the point where we have to recognize that we have to end growth," he says.
The WREZ environmental and lands working group has identified areas that should be excluded or avoided from renewable development -- in British Columbia these include parks, ecological reserves, conservancies, protected areas and recreational areas.
Wildlife assessments have no yet been conducted for the QRAs, but this information will be considered when the renewable energy zones are finalized, says Deike.
Tom Hackney, policy director for the B.C. Sustainable Energy Association has been monitoring the initiative and says it would serve the function of a land use planning exercise for renewable energy in the province -- something environmental groups have long called for.
"If done appropriately, it would identify renewable energy sites that could be developed with minimum impact to the environment," says Hackney.
But it's a big if, he adds.
"The factors are mainly the public's ideas and their views on what ecosystems and what parts of the landscape should be preserved for wildlife."
Questions remain
If the public does accept the WREZ initiative, says Hackney, it could reduce the politics and push back associated with the situation of large renewable energy projects.
For the general public, there are broader questions that must be addressed.
Exactly how many power projects can residents expect to see, and how will environmental impact be minimized?
What will large-scale renewable development mean for smaller, community-based renewable projects?
Will BC Hydro's energy conservation efforts fall by the wayside?
What will our obligations be under NAFTA?
And, will citizens have a chance to participate in this process?
Stay tuned.
Related Tyee stories:
- How the Carbon Casino Pits Ecologist Against Ecologist
Robert Falls helped create the David Suzuki Foundation. Now he calls it an obstacle to restoring degraded ecosystems. - Private River Power Draws Diverse Foes
'Green' claims disputed. - Americanize Me? No Thanks
Why Canadians must fight 'deep integration' with US.
![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
Jeffrey J.
25-02-2009
Will Citizens Be Consulted
"Will citizens have a chance to participate in this process?"
The million dollar question. With a likely answer of no.
The arrogance of BC's political and corporate elite continues to appall and amaze.
However, lest I feel too dejected, I have to say thank you once again to the Tyee. Years ago when we had a functioning press, this would be in the newspaper. We no longer have functioning daily press, but we have something even better: internet news sites like the Tyee.
So I'll trade my anger at Gordon Campbell for feelings of gratitude for David Beers and his stalwart journalists who keep us informed.
Now, I need to go and help organize some resistance....
Luke Skywalker
25-02-2009
Great Idea...
A BC renewable energy industry... economic development... Heck I'm sure that even BC New Democrat premier Dan Miller would be on-side, considering he also supports offshore natural gas development.
Also looks like Manitoba New Democrat premier Gary Doer has already one-upped BC in this regard.
Manitoba Hydro already has 400 MW of IPP power in place or in RFP's. Based upon a population basis, that would equate to 1,600 MW right here in BC. BC Hydro's Site C dam will only have 900 MW of generating capacity.
But Manitoba New Democrat premier Gary Doer is smarter than that. Manitoba Hydro is also constructing additional hydro dams for export power.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2008/04/17/hydro-deal.html
Of course, the tree huggers and the enviro fringe will always oppose same:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2008/05/20/hydro-wisconsin.html
Manitoba New Democrat premier Gary Doer is an astute politician. He reminds me of former BC New Democrat premier Dan Miller whom one First Nations hereditary chief described to me as a "smart businessman".
I sure don't see any Gary Doers or Dan Millers within the BC NDP these days.
seth
25-02-2009
smart businessman
Certainly only one man in the BC Liberal's would even remotely qualify - that would be backbencher Ralph Sultan P.Eng Phd former CO of RBC Dominion Securities. Can it be he sits on the back benches because he would refuse to sign off on Rubes like Campbells commitments to buying tens of billions in power at 12 cents a kwh that we will have to export at 2 cents into states using nuclear power. Buy high, sell low good business plan!!!
Of course by the time the taxpayer realizes he's been had, Gordo and gang will be relaxing in some sunny tax haven enjoying the benefits of their lucrative consulting and board of director appointments.
Luke Skywalker
25-02-2009
seth...
Since you seem to be so impressed with Ralph Sultan, perhaps a little homework is a good thing. :)
Ralph Sultan:
For that matter:
http://www.ralphsultan.com/Newsltr-2008/newsltr-2008-welcome.html
Frank
25-02-2009
Good for Rees
"Plans for BC, Alberta and eleven states to produce and export renewable energy."
The problem of course is that wrecking rivers is the furthest thing from "renewable". Ask the salmon how Campbell's "renewable" energy plans have been working out for them because the answer is "not very well".
And of course there's no plans to curb growth at any point in Campbell's 1,000 year Reich so every decade we'll be told we need to wreck even more of the environment so that we can keep adding population and keep the economy growing.
William Rees gets it, Campbell not so much.
Frank
25-02-2009
LOL
"In a brief seven years this government, despite some recent setbacks, has created almost half a million new jobs"
And in a month lost 20% of them apparently.
quarry bay
25-02-2009
Oh I forgot.........
According to Kevin Falcon,the Port Mann bridge project is going to create 8000 jobs......and the SFPR South fraser perimeter road is going to create 7000 jobs?
Wow,I can`t wait,I picture in my mind teams of thousands dragging rocks,using levers and ropes and pulleys,I think I saw this type of construction in a Charlton Heston movie or one of those Egyption pryamid specials!...LOL LOL
Pretty funny,isn`t it? Considering the 4 billion dollar toba inlet private power destruction is only employing a couple of hundred?
But apparently 3.3 billion$ bridge and a 900 million dollar$ road are going to create 15000 thousand jobs?
Maybe they will take the 20000 thousand employees from the Vancouver trade and convention center considering that boondoggle is finished.
Cheers
Quarry bay
North of Hope
25-02-2009
sustainable energy
BC and Canada should be self sufficient and sustainable in energy as well. We have to look at how we are going to get our energy. We must do a complete and thorough study of all ways we can generate energy, whether it be hydro, coal, solar, geothermal, wind, nuclear, wood, biofuels, gas or any other source of energy. All methods must be examined and these results must be public. Only after such a study can we use an energy source. We must do this so our energy sources are sustainable and not harmful to the environment.
For example, with the Site C Dam project, we would look at the costs to the environment, people displaced, farmland lost, water use downstream and the generation of energy without producing GHG’s, etc.
No undertaking such as mining, housing developments, highways, etc. can be done without an environmental and sustainability analysis. We must be careful not to remove too many plants or trees, as we need them to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. Other wastes must be recycled rather than thrown into landfills or oceans. Recycling must become a major activity in our sustainable culture.
We must develop a national and provincial energy plan so we can look forward and know we can have a healthy life for future generations.
seth
26-02-2009
ralph Sultan
Yes Luke nice little quotes from his newsletter - he is after all a member of the Liberal party. Hardly an unqualified endorsment of Gordo's buy high sell low private power business plan. Why don't you quote what Ralph had to say about buying ferries in Germany.
Despite his status as the only Liberal with experience in large business or engineering, he remains on the backbench. Wonder why?
Chris Wood
26-02-2009
Eyes on the prize, people
Thank you, Colleen, for a useful report on a timely and valuable public sector initiative.
Suzuki's Nicolas Heap is right: we are going to need some energy from somewhere. The thing about renewable energy is that it is not always available where people need it. Hence the need for transmission, and for decisions about where to locate transmission corridors with least impact.
The same applies to run-of-river or small-scale hydro.
Bill Rees is right too: we need to stop and reverse the growth in our overall demands on the planet.
But these are not mutually incompatible goals. In fact, they are mutually dependent.
We need solutions here. That's the prize.
Just saying "Don't!" to every proposed solution, even before it can be examined, is ideological wrong-headedness every bit as damaging as blind faith in the perfect judgement of unfettered markets.
So too is the reflexive hatred of business revealed by those who cannot abide a company making a profit while also solving an environmental problem (see comments to my own story elsewhere on The Tyee on the carbon casino).
Obstructionism may be fun for some. For those who actually care about the future our children and grandchildren will experience, it is a waste of human energy.
Eyes on the prize, people.
seth
26-02-2009
profits to them losses for us
You need to think Chris about the meaning of profit.
As many commentators have pointed out BCHydro can finance at 4% the hedge fund profiteers finance at 15%. BCHydro is not allowed to compete. Makes the cost of the pirate for profit three times that of public power ie 12 cents a kwh.
Given that modern mass produced nuclear technology - the greenist technology available today - is coming in at 2 cents a kwh, the requirement to export most of pirate powers' offerings means tens of billions in losses to taxpayers
Frank
26-02-2009
The prize?
Depends on what the prize is Chris.
For some of us the prize is preserving a pristine river and the abundant life it supports.
For others its investing in a private, and foreign, company that will damage the river and its ecosystem so as to make a few bucks they can put in their RRSP while selling power to the Americans at no cost to themselves because the river is part of the "commons" and therefore of no value to them.
Yep, I can see why some would prefer prize B over prize A.
Its the same kind of thinking that leads people to turn young girls out on the streets. Whatever makes money is a good thing regardless of the collateral damage done.
Rod Smelser
26-02-2009
Bill Rees: "we have to end growth"
"We're very close to the point where we have to recognize that we have to end growth," he says.
Prof Rees, I am told, is one of the world's greatest experts on environmental economics. And he lives right here in Vancouver, teaches at UBC, and bikes to work from his humble abode in West Point Grey! He believes we have to end economic growth.
May I, as a taxpayer whose taxes pay for UBC among other things, ask whether or not Prof Rees recommends that this halt to economic growth should occur now, or after the next round of UBC pay increases are awarded?
I hope I am not being unduly argumentative here because I actually agree totally with Prof Rees's point that "concerns about climate change have taken undue precedence over other ecological concerns." I think that's a fairly accurate, if perhaps unduly sanitized and euphemistic description of what was going down last year with respect to BC's carbon tax and Dion's Green Shift, and the stances taken by the best-financed ENGOs and many academic economists and climate experts.
Wilfred Laurier
26-02-2009
Irony
The irony here is that we as a province have the ability to generate huge amounts of power in about as an environmentally benign manner as possible. This power could be exported all over North America and could displace huge amounts of coal fired generation and the associated CO2 emissions. This power would also bring large revenues into the BC treasury and create large numbers of jobs.
Yet the left is against it, of course. They are against everything that does not directly affect them. I suggest anybody who believes this kind of project is not beneficial have the electricity in their home disconnected as part of a personal conservation programme.
DJT
26-02-2009
Don't build it- they won't come
RS, I think maybe Dr. Rees was referring to population growth, not strictly economic growth. If so, I have to agree 100%. If you don't build it, they won't come. Of course that wouldn't line pockets, so it ain't gonna' happen, and on and on we go.
quarry bay
26-02-2009
Wrong again Wilf.........
What money flows to the province from Plutonic Power or GE?.........
answer-NONE
After the construction of the private projects the money leaves the province never to be seen again........
We on the left,right,middle care about the province,wild salmon and any enviromental damage done should at least have permanent revenue streams to the province.
You see I mentioned left,right,and center because the departing in may premier`s policies help no-one but a few corporate big-wigs.
But some Bullies just don`t care.
Frank
26-02-2009
Wilf
"I suggest anybody who believes this kind of project is not beneficial have the electricity in their home disconnected as part of a personal conservation programme."
And I suggest anyone who wants to allow foreign companies to wreck BC rivers so as to export power back to their own countries should have the water taps turned off into their own homes.
Luke Skywalker
26-02-2009
Frank...
As in many BC New Democrat party members while in government???
http://tinyurl.com/anav7b
lynn
26-02-2009
Feeding the Nouveau Green Energy Monster
As William Rees states in this article our focus should be on conservation of energy sources.
You would think that by gazing at a world now collapsing in on itself that the one thing we would recognize and salvage for our new ark is the need for and importance of regulation and public oversight.
In Ontario, similar concerns about the sweeping powers of their Green Energy Act:
"We are very concerned that the provincial government is simply going to pay lip service to our concerns," said Beth Harrington, a spokeswoman for Wind Concerns Ontario, an organization representing more than a dozen community groups across the province. "This is a new technology and the wind turbines are getting bigger and bigger and bigger. The turbines are going to have a greater impact as time moves on and we need some clear guidelines."
The proposed legislation does not indicate how close wind turbines will be allowed near homes, roads or environmentally sensitive areas."
Frank
26-02-2009
"But seriously... ...is more
"But seriously...
...is more than happy to sell to the states on the spot market for exorbinant prices to the suckers down south with their air-con on 24/7."
Which is the crux of the matter isn't it? Forget the BS about "Green energy corridors" and happy singing salmon. The reason foreign investors are lining up to develop our rivers is because some of us want more money than what we have now and giving away land that we don't personally own is just too easy. Everything else is just green washing which is why its so easy to shoot down.
Luke Skywalker
26-02-2009
The Environment...
And the pre-development costs in the $hundreds of thousands$ associated with that micro-hydro project were foregone and Plutonic had to pay BC Hydro $100,000 to get out of their contract as a result. Let the private sector eat the costs, not BC Hydro.
And I'm sure UnCivilizedEngineer will confirm, it can be brutal to obtain the necessary permits through Federal Fisheries.
As for the environment, I don't recall anybody screaming when BC Hydro built their massive dams on the Columbia/Peace River systems.
So it's OK for Manitoba New Democrats to permit Manitoba Hydro to purchase IPP power and build massive dams for electrical export to the U.S., but it's not OK for the current BC Liberal government to follow suit?
As Spock would say... "That's not logical."
lynn
26-02-2009
River valleys teem with life.
River valleys teem with life.
They are the real thing.....one of the TRULY best places on earth..... and with run-of-river diversion applications targeted for the most viable and wonderful...and rare watersheds on the B.C. coast and with anywhere from 10-20 possible sites in some watersheds, this marks the beginning of the end for British Columbia’s coastal wilderness.
Choose one:
a)Tragic.
b)Stupid.
c)Criminal
d)All of the above
Peter Dimitrov
26-02-2009
Professor Bill Rees and Ending Growth
you are 100% correct Bill...we are way into 'overshoot'...the scale of human society/economy -and the market doesn't decide scale - is weighing heavy on the carrying capacity of this planet...not just the carbon footprint, but google the Millenium Assessment...and you will see about the sorry state of the world's 'natural capital'. We need as human society to move as quickly to smart and "strong sustainable" development, we need to replace GDP as the primary indicator of measuring in our socieety, or at least augment it with a Progress Index -like Atlantic GPI or what they do in Oregon. Politcally, there is no doubt that Canada is losing her energy security and independence - continentalism in regards to energy, water, food, capital flows, air quality, etc. is already here. Read Mel Watkins and Maud Barow to see our struggle as a country and our progessive loss of soverignity, or google Paul Hellyer -former leader of the Canadian Action Party. If you think the global financial/economic collapse is terrible, and it is due to the impacts on people's lives, contemplate the collapse of the earth's ability to continue to provide ecological services for humanity...google ecological services to get a full picture of that. We are, and have always been living in an age of uncertainty, and now our resilence as a species will be tested as is the resilence of other species. ..and if Campbell gets re-elected and Harper ever gets a majority..we will have a very tough time transiting to smart strong sustainable development, we will not be able to reel in the 'externalizing machinery of high impact growth and changing the laws as they pertain to corporations and their effect on communities, working people, culture and the environment. If we don't change, our will not be the first civilization in human history to completely collapse.
freebear
27-02-2009
Gorging on the Planet!
The growth mantra is still being trumpeted despite the unsustainability of it all!
We need more electricity to power all the new devices we consumers want and are told will save the economy!
We need more electricity to power all the new 'green' development we will build!
We need more!
More!
More!
Oh I'm so full I'm going to burst like the Monty Python over eater!
Rod Smelser
27-02-2009
freebear: Do you think economic growth should be stopped?
freebear
The growth mantra is still being trumpeted despite the unsustainability of it all!
...
Oh I'm so full I'm going to burst like the Monty Python over eater!
Do you think economic growth should be stopped? If so, how would this affect your own personal livlihood?
I agree there is an uncritical pro-growth mantra that pre-occupies business, media, sales and booster types, but isn't there also a no-growth mantra that pre-occupies the self-styled opponents of these people?
freebear
27-02-2009
Steady State
I think a steady state economy rather than a growth or die model is possible. To me that would be sustainable development.
We must do with less.
Can we handle that consumers?
Umslopogaas
27-02-2009
Birth Control
Dark days are ahead and all this nonsense about sustainable economies without population control is pie in the sky.
Mandatory population control is one faint hope but a global pandemic is far more likely.
We are too numerous and too prolific and too tempting to those hungry microbes that will soon dine on billions of us.
Now let's see where did I leave those 8 embryos that need implanting?
SharingIsGood
28-02-2009
A note about GE
Along with Plutonic Power, GE owns NBC. NBC has the US broadcast contract for the Olympics. It's really cozy up in Campbell-land. It's just one big corporate group hug.
lynn
28-02-2009
Right on, SharingIsGood.
Right on, SharingIsGood.
We get BIG flyers in the mail all the time telling us what a green wonder Plutonic Power and their partner GE are. Numerous ads every week in our local paper promoting the massive green monster.
It is helpful to remember that what corporations really excell at (some would say "only" excell at) is marketing. First they and their relentless advertising tell us we must BELIEVE in them...and then we must kneel to them in our about to be stolen public pews... all the while they are finding hidden ways that we, the public can contribute and fund their bottomless and ever-revolving collection plate.
What kind of access will we have to our rivers and their surrounding land?
If the public loses access and thus the right to claim - is this really a silent sale of our crown resources and land? It wouldn't even be a sale would it? It would be a steal of a deal.....for a mere ten thousand dollar fee.
What kind of public oversight of the coastal wilderness will there be if we are not allowed access to monitor environmental damage to fish and wildlife..and this rare wilderness landscape?
What about the Chapter 11 clause of NAFTA? Are we being set up?
Also for a company supposedly promoting green energy this is the kind of "green" choice Plutonic Power made:
Q: Who is "the green choice" (and main financial backer) that Plutonic chose to partner with in this 4 billion dollar mega-project?
A: General Electric.
Q: What corporation is responsible for the largest number of 'Super-Fund' toxic sites in the US??
A: General Electric
Q: Why was The Super-Fund law created?
A: The Superfund law was created to protect people, families, communities and others from heavily contaminated toxic waste sites that have been abandoned.
alive
28-02-2009
Comdoms is the answer!
Umslopogaas:
I fully agree with you, the most important factor is to limit population growth!
Anything else we migth do is merely window-dressing, that looks good, but does not solve the simple fact that we have too many people demanding ever increasing services.
lynn
01-03-2009
Energy sovereignty within our own grasp
Hi SharingIsGood,
You make an excellent point that bears repeating:
Quote:
"These ROR (Run of River) projects are misnamed. They are not run of river, they are diversion of river. There is much destruction of the ecosystems in building these power plants, the roads that service them and the utility poles and towers that take the electricity away. There are sao many smarter and easy ways to generate heat and electricity."
Certainly as you suggest solar and geo-thermal are much more natural and elegant systems of generating heat and electricity.
As we adopt these truly green methods, the costs of these systems will greatly decrease. We will have personal control over our energy needs.... instead of giving that control, along with our invaluable resources, away to foreign corporations.
lynn
01-03-2009
Elders' Wisdom
This was a letter in our local newspaper.
The writer says it better than I ever could.
Here is his eloquent and powerful letter:
"Elders' wisdom":
"I have heard many reference to the sacred love of the earth by native elders and I honour their wisdom. However, I too have elders and they have taught me to be wary of corporate flacks who use high-pressure public relations campaigns to stampede me into despoiling our natural resources for a few token jobs and a pittance while they reap billions ["Plutonic proposal for Bute powers debate," February 4].
My elders taught me that if it was imperative to take such drastic and irreversible action then it should be done by BC Hydro. Hydro, the legacy of W.A.C. Bennett (hardly a socialist) has been pouring revenues into provincial coffers and providing a manufacturing edge for decades. The idea that we could not assemble the expertise for these projects is preposterous.
Equally preposterous is the assertion that BC has been reduced to importing power. The truth being that we generate even more profit by buying low and selling high.
One has only to remember the cynically engineered brownouts by Enron or witness the corporate greed fueling the current economic meltdown to be wary of bequeathing that to our children.
I object to being railed at as "anti-native" or a "self-appointed environmentalist" for expressing serious concerns about these projects. I also strongly object to School District 47 being used as a shill for private interests.
Please support a moratorium on these ever-expanding resource giveaways until a genuine scientific analysis of the cumulative effects and indeed, rationale of these projects, can be done.
Please read Professor John Calvert's Liquid Gold for a clear analysis of run-of-river projects."
michael maser
01-03-2009
Where is Tidal Power in WREZ? (letter to Minister)
(copy of letter below)
Honourable Minister Blair Lekstrom
Government of British Columbia
March 1, 2009
re - Where is Tidal Power in WREZ?!
Dear Minister Lekstrom,
I recently read of your government's WREZ initiative and am absolutely shocked that there is not a single mention of tidal current energy potential along the southern BC coast. How can this be? BC Hydro's 2002 'Green Energy Report on Tidal Current Energy' makes it clear on p 2 of its Executive Summary of this potential.
How is it that your ministry has done, and continues to do absolutely nothing - NADA - to help advance this renewable energy source - on behalf of the ultra high-density, emission-free energy generation and the potential of billions of dollars in manufacturing-export jobs!! Think I'm inhaling coal-bed methane? How about this news story from earlier in February:
(Scottish Power to harness tidal power | This is Money )
Scottish Power to harness tidal power
Financial Mail; 8 February 2009,
Scottish Power is poised to invest more than £100m over the next three years to kickstart a new tidal-energy industry building underwater turbines.
Hammerfest UK, the tidal power arm of Scottish Power, is receiving tenders and a prototype is expected to be tested off Orkney later this year.
An announcement will be made in May. The plan is to create a company to build 60 machines annually, mainly for export.
The first 60 turbines will be completed by 2011 and will be deployed in the Pentland Firth, northern Scotland, and off the Sound of Islay, western Scotland, as well as off the Antrim coast, Northern Ireland. (END OF EXCERPT)
HOW, Minister Lekstrom, can you expect BC citizens to consider your ministry to have any credibility when your government's budget speech of mid-February claims,
"We can become global leaders in wind, run-of river, tidal, geothermal, wave, solar and other forms of clean, renewable power and leading-edge transmission technologies"
yet your Ministry continues to ignore and dismiss the profound potential of tidal current energy year after year. This is shameful.
I urge you, as newly-appointed Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum to correct this oversight and assure British Columbians that you and your government will act to correct this wrong.
Sincerely,
Michael Maser
206 Pratt Rd., Gibsons V0N 1V3
cc. - Premier Gordon Campbell
Frank
01-03-2009
Rod
What I want can be summed up in a nutshell, which is "live within our means".
Until our population is limited to what the planet can support without in effect "eating our seedcorn" then we are acting irrationally.
JStog said he believes growth will always happen, no limits on it.
That statement is of course ludicrous.
So I ask you, what limit to growth would you accept if any?
Rod Smelser
01-03-2009
No limits to economic or population growth
Frank
What I want can be summed up in a nutshell, which is "live within our means".
The aphorism "live within our means" is, of course, completely meaningless in this context.
China is a totalitarian society that implemented a one child policy. In a democracy, I don't agree with that type of approach. Do you?
In Canada, as I am sure you're aware, our population will not be increasing by natural means within the next ten or so years. From that point onward, any increase in this nation's population will have to come entirely from immigration.
I do not agree that economic growth should be limited. We need to keep our economic potential and our actual economic output increasing at the fastest rate we can in order to provide increased living standards in the household sector and incrased levels of real public goods and services in the public sector. To do that, we will need high levels of investment by private business and a return to positive savings by Canadians.