The Vancouver Sun’s editorial for December 4, 2015 is a review of Premier Clark’s performance in Paris at COP21. While promoting BC’s carbon tax as a big policy success (thanks, Gordon Campbell) is a good thing, those annoying carbon-friendly policies at home need some work.
If all this suggests a premier who wants to have her cake at the emissions reduction banquet in Paris while eating it at the carbon exports feast in B.C., that’s probably not surprising. Politics are politics and the premier is a consummate politician. However, here’s a little cake on the carbon emissions menu we’d like to see her serve back here where the limelight shines less brightly.
First, fix the Metro transit mess that the provincial government’s meddling has created and for which the province holds all the cards — legislative, regulatory and revenue generation. If we are going to get people out of their cars — about 100,000 additional motor vehicles registered in Metro every five years — we need to offer a quality regional public transit alternative. That requires coherent policy and senior government leadership.
Second, can we please move beyond the reactionary model by which transit operators must scramble to respond to what rapid growth dictates. Instead let’s develop a proactive long-range strategic vision that anticipates and builds out today the infrastructure that population growth, climate change and our responses to them will impose tomorrow.
I attended a talk by Mark Jaccard who had discussions with the province before the initial carbon tax was implemented. He felt at the time that the tax was too low, but had hoped that it would continue to increase over time. Sadly, this has not happened, so with every passing year, the impact keeps decreasing.
While I didn’t agree with many things Gordon Campbell did, he had a great vision for transit and a green economy. Unfortunately, his replacement has taken BC in the opposite direction.
What’s a “green economy” ?
e-tractor & e-combines ?
e-trucks only to deliver goods ?
solar panel on every roof ?
hydro only ?
e-cars only ?
no more diesel buses in the city ?
no flights in or out of YVR except solar planes ?
no more harbour activity, except onto e-boats, with container delivered on e-trucks ?
no more imported goods produced in China or India with dirty coal derived energy ?
Thus, the $10 apple, the $10 banana, the $10 loaf of bread, 40% unemployment, riots in the streets, plummeting tourism revenues, house prices dropping 60%, vacant harbours, roads and condo towers, ex-migration ?
Or what SPECIFICALLY do you mean by “green economy” ? Just carbon taxes ? Road tolls ? Fuel cell buses @ $8/ride ? Gasoline @ $4/liter ? What ?
Thomas, you’re such a drama queen.
Here’s a Lazard Investment Bank report from last month, showing that new unsubsidized utility-scale Solar PV and wind are cheaper than new sources of conventional energy (nuclear, coal, gas, etc.):
https://www.lazard.com/media/2390/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-analysis-90.pdf
In Texas, they’ve installed so much cheap wind power over the past decade that utilities are offering customers free electricity after 9pm:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/09/business/energy-environment/a-texas-utility-offers-a-nighttime-special-free-electricity.html
In Uruguay, 95% of their electricity now comes from renewables, and prices are actually lower now than they were before:
http://qz.com/566773/uruguay-is-now-generating-95-of-its-electricity-from-renewable-energy/
As for China and India? China had 114 GW of wind power installed by the end of 2014, roughly a third of the world’s total (370 GW). India was number 5 in the world, with 22 GW.
http://www.gwec.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/GLOBAL_INSTALLED_WIND_POWER_CAPACITY_MW_%E2%80%93_Regional_Distribution.jpg
In the US in 2015, renewable electricity plants (wind, solar, biomass, etc.) accounted for 60% of new installed power capacity:
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/in-us-new-renewable-installations-1460-times-more-than-new-coal-19112
Conclusion? Your overcooked fears about renewable energy are completely unfounded.
Lastly, I was recently in Germany, home of those high electricity rates that you always bang on about. I didn’t see any of the following: $10 bananas/apples, 40% unemployment, 60% drop in house prices, etc. It remains a country with some of the lowest food prices in the developed world, lowest unemployment in Europe, and very well-built, affordable housing.
Just to invite some commentary on uneducated thinking about “green economy”. Electricity by hydro or solar is great, but why aren’t electric cars flying off the shelves if they are so great or so inexpensive already ? Plus even Europe, incl green wunderbar king Germany, has trucks .& cars galore on diesel. Why is that ? Natural oil makes great long distance transportation fuel and as a base for products. Not so great indeed for electricity generation. SO, to ask again: What does “green economy” mean ? @ what price points ? There is no free (green) lunch.
Reality check from Ontario: http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/how-green-energy-is-fleecing-ontario-electricity-consumers
Ontario is getting hosed with this because they on occasion have to export power. We don’t in BC. Just turn the taps down and save the water for when you need hydroelectricity or when you can charge the most for it.
Nuclear doesn’t shut down, so sometimes when usage is low they have too much power and sell it for next to nothing.
“Plus even Europe, incl green wunderbar king Germany, has trucks .& cars galore on diesel. Why is that ?”
Simple: subsidies for diesel. “Because of generous diesel subsidies, nearly 48 percent of German cars and more than 60 percent of Austrian cars are powered by diesel.”
http://www.dw.com/en/eu-tax-shake-up-could-make-diesel-pricey/a-14976341
Europe, and Germany especially, made a big mistake pushing diesel over the past 15-20 years.
“but why aren’t electric cars flying off the shelves if they are so great or so inexpensive already ?”
Who said anything about electric cars being “inexpensive already”? Making stuff up, as always, Thomas. Par for the course, dealing with you.
However, like solar PV before it over the past 30 years, battery costs are dropping dramatically:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n4/fig_tab/nclimate2564_F1.html
Just like solar PV and wind have surprised most observers with the speed of their cost/price declines (and subsequently very high growth installation rates), electric vehicles will surprise most observers with their cost declines and adoption rates over the coming 15-20 years.
As for Ontario? That’s the past, Thomas. I’m looking at the facts on the ground today, and what they mean for the future. Thanks to the rapid declines in renewable energy costs, many regions around the world can now install GW’s of solar and wind at lower cost than conventional power. Africa will benefit massively from this, leapfrogging coal/natgas/nuclear and jumping right to decentralised solar grids, just like they leapfrogged landline telephones with cell phones.
Indeed, why pay 6 cents for nuclear or hydro energy when one can pay 30-60 cents for solar roof top or windmill with installed batteries in the basement for those windless or cloudy days ? Even Denmark, the king of wind uses coal for 50% of its electricity and base demand as it is not always windy in Denmark.
Some e-cars today are less than $25,000 .. so why don’t we see a 30-50% pickup on new car purchases for cars under $30,000 ? Is it because it is still only a toy for the rich, as a second vehicle ?
What about them toxic batteries and bird killing windmills ? That is real green ? http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/windfarm-turbines-deadly-for-birds-bats/article4392511/
When can we see viable e-trucks, e-mini-vans (sub $50,000 with a 500 km range for a family of 4) or e-buses ? Is the average Vancouver customer willing to pay double or triple for an e-bus ride vs a diesel bus ?
We already have e-buses. They have been around for a long time. We call them trolley buses. We used to have an electrically powered streetcar network, but this got dismantled years ago due to the cabal of GM, Firestone Tire and Standard Oil.
Oh, Thomas. You’re so comically mis-informed. Feel free to ignore the cost figures for renewables vs nuclear as detailed in that Lazard report.
Utility scale PV: $0.58 – 0.7 / kWh
Utility scale Wind: $0.32 – 0.77 / kWh
Nuclear: $0.97 – 1.36 / kWh
New solar and wind are roughly half as expensive as new nuclear. Nuclear is finished. Good riddance.
You’re absolutely right, Denmark hasn’t achieved 100% renewables yet. See, this whole energy transition thing does take a few decades. It doesn’t happen overnight. Denmark took 25 years to go from 0 to 50% renewables.
You’re like the guy arguing against cell phones when they were first introduced in the late 70’s: they cost a few thousand, were as big as briefcases, and had horrible reception. 35 years later: 95% of the world’s population has a cell phone subscription.
https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/facts/ICTFactsFigures2015.pdf
Ah, the old ‘wind kills birds’ chestnut: “Wind turbines kill between 214,000 and 368,000 birds annually — a small fraction compared with the estimated 6.8 million fatalities from collisions with cell and radio towers and the 1.4 billion to 3.7 billion deaths from cats.”
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/09/15/wind-turbines-kill-fewer-birds-than-cell-towers-cats/15683843/
Would you like to ban cats? Or maybe we should remove all cell phone towers? Which would you prefer?
A 500 km e-bus? I can do much better. Here’s an Australian company building buses with a 1000 km range:
http://onestepoffthegrid.com.au/australian-all-electric-bus-drives-into-record-books-1018km-on-one-charge/
Better hurry over to super-green Ontario. They just last week announced $13-billion dollars (with a B) is to be spent to upgrade their Bruce Nuclear facilities. They’re trying to catch up with France. You do realize that all the power to run those trains that are the world’s fastest and all those bulbs illuminating the City of Light, including the glorious COP21 enviro-fest, is 75% nuclear generated.
Actually, it’s closer to 80%.
Nope, Eric was closer to being right. It’s actually 73%. And dropping…
Upgrade? All they’re doing is extending the lifespan of the plant, one which has an awful history. They aren’t adding generating capacity. They already “refurbished” two of the reactors. How did that go?
“In 2011, it was reported that Unit1 and 2 refurbishment, originally scheduled for 2009, was now predicted to be in commercial operation in 2012. In 2011, the cost had totalled $3.8 billion; the final cost was expected to be $4.8 billion. The original 2005 estimate was $2.75 billion.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Nuclear_Generating_Station#Refurbishment_Bruce_1_and_2
That $13 billion figure? Based on prior experience at Bruce, better double that figure.
So, since they’re not adding any new generating capacity, I’m not sure how you would describe that as “trying to catch up with France.” Haha.
But not to worry, France is reducing their reliance on nuclear as well. Renewables now account for nearly 20% of their electricity needs:
http://renewables.seenews.com/news/renewables-share-in-frances-electricity-mix-grows-to-19-497264
Not to mention the fact that France actually imports electricity from Germany.
Anyway, the trendline for nuclear is clearly down:
http://www.energyintel.com/pages/worldopinionarticle.aspx?DocID=906841
“As shown in the table, nuclear power’s share of global electricity generation is now about 11%, nearly 39% below the historical maximum of 17.6% in 1996.”
Again, nuclear is finished. Dead. Wave goodbye…
“France, one of the world’s leaders in nuclear energy production, plans to draw down nuclear’s share of electricity generation from 75 to 50 percent by 2025—giving itself a 10-year time frame equivalent to the complete shutdown now ongoing in Germany. Which reactors are to be disconnected is not specifically mentioned.”
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/france-plans-to-reduce-nuclear-in-favor-of-renewables/
“Europe’s largest solar PV installation has been officially inaugurated this week. Located across 250 hectares near Bordeaux, Cestas will produce solar energy cheaper than new nuclear plants.
Developed by Neoen for a cost of €360 million ($382 million), Cestas will see its solar energy for a price of €105/MWh ($111/MWh) for 20 years, which is on a par with wind power and cheaper than the cost of new nuclear energy, confirmed Neoen chief executive, Xavier Barbaro.
France’s older nuclear plants, built in the 1970s and ‘80s, deliver nuclear energy for around €55/MWh, but newer nuclear plants – such as the controversial Hinkley Point development in the U.K., which is being built by French utility EDF – are set to deliver energy for a government-guaranteed price of around €130/MWh. ”
http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/frances-300-mw-cestas-solar-plant-inaugurated_100022247/
“The project winners for the most recent 810 MW French CR3 PV tender has been dominated by ground mounted projects up to 12 MWp in size, as established developers in the market, and their subsidiaries, pick up the vast majority of projects.
The long awaited 810 MW French CRE tender has demonstrated the clear preference of the government to see distributed projects developed in a geographically diverse manner. Industry experts note that while the mean project price of €0.086/kWh ($0.087/kWh) is aggressive, it is not overly so and comparable with costs achieved in France’s less sunny neighbor Germany. ”
http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/analysis–utility-scale-accounts-for-more-than-half-of-french-cr3-tender_100022350/
Nuclear’s dead, baby. Even in France.
MB, this is for you, on nuclear’s share of electricity production in France:
https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/Energy-and-Resources/gx-er-merket-reform-france.pdf
“In 2013, nuclear energy accounted for 49% of the generation capacity mix (63 GW), but delivered 73% of the power (402 TWh). Renewable energy sources generated 19% of electricity production.”
I guess saying it is better than not saying it, but no editorial in no Vancouver rag is going to convince the premier to actually do her job. When this stuff runs in The Daily Courier I’ll be more optimistic.
Maybe we should move beyond the model where motorists are expected to fund transit. Seriously, why would you depend on a competitor to fund your operation? The logical conclusion if you’re a success is you wipe out your funder, ridiculous when transit can never be self-supporting!
Maybe we should move beyond the model where motorists are subsidised by non-motorists:
“Similarly, in Canada during 2009 – 10, all levels of government spent $28.9 billion on roads and collected $12.1 billion in fuel taxes and $4.4 billion in other transport user fees, indicating that road user fees cover about 64% of costs (TC 2010).”
“In addition to roadway subsidies, motor vehicle travel imposes other external costs (costs not borne directly by individual users), including parking subsidies, congestion delays and crash risk imposed on other road users, and environmental damages (Litman 2009; van Essen, et al. 2007). Table 3 summarizes estimates of these costs, which indicates that
automobile use has external costs averaging about 29.3¢, while cycling costs ave
rage about 0.9¢ and walking just 0.2¢ per mile.”
http://www.vtpi.org/whoserd.pdf
.
Studies like that conveniently ignore the benefits transit and commercial vehicles derive from having that same road network supported.
We don’t need so many lanes for commercial vehicles and transit. Look at how low their use is as a percentage.
If it were only so, that road use could be restricted to commercial, emergency and transit vehicles. Then we could sell half or more of the land the road network occupies, which consumes over 30% of the gross urban land area.
Like energy costs, road use is in EVERYTHING. Everything you eat, everything you wear, everything in your house, condo or apartment, any office, any commercial or even leisure activity requires energy AND A ROAD to get stuff or people to and fro. Increase road prices and you will increase costs of EVERYTHING. It is essentially another tax. The question then is: what other taxes are being lowered if you increase road taxes ? GST ? PST ? CPP ? EI ? income taxes ? What ?
Every action (tax, carbon tax, road tolls/congestion tax) has a consequence in the “green economy”.
If roads were priced to be revenue neutral, then yes the cost of goods sold would go up marginally, but other taxes would go down.
should .. not would !
Other taxes – especially gas taxes could be reduced. With road pricing, the use of the roads would diminish. We would therefore need less roads, less maintenance, less or smaller bridges. There would be less pollution, less ghg emissions, less noise. More people would cycle and use transit. We would be healthier. Our cities would be more livable. Cost of everything would decrease. We would be way better off.
As I mentioned in another post, why are people support paying for roads through yearly taxes but they are not OK with paying for gasoline sharing the yearly costs equally between all car owners. Ditto for house heating.
In other words, why should I subsidize those who chose to drive for most of their trips.
Bob, transit in Vancouver has a 50% operating cost recovery rate. Roads do not, yet they are maintained by taxpayers. The Port Mann will drop the tolls once the construction debt on the overengineered monstrosity is paid off in whatever decade. But the operating costs are and will be ongoing.
I see transit as another subsidy for the automobile, since it makes driving in an urban area possible. I would be interested whether others agree.
A competitor? Congrats on dumbing down the discussion just a little bit more.
Well said Bob. Andrew Coyne came to SFU, gave a long speech, and said that transit should be attractive and priced appropriately and make its own way. Many people didn’t want to hear it.
You are leaving out the part where driving should be priced appropriately. Many people don’t want to hear it.
Yes, he did but he never suggested that drivers should pay for transit.
I recall his position being that without subsidized transit, government should provide income supplements. He didn’t suggest income supplements for drivers.
Sounds like drivers might still be paying.
He suggested that those with low incomes should receive supplements. Be certain that some would drive.
The Vancouver Sun editorial board has either changed its tune or changed its personnel. This was one of their more enlightened editorials.