On Tuesday night I joined an assortment of environmentalists, activists, politicians and business people at City Hall to hear two very smart people speak. The guests were veterans of the California energy economy and had a lot of very interesting information to share.
California realised a long time ago that while they needed a great deal of energy to run the state, they didn't need to continue building new power plants. Getting the populace to use less was just as effective and often cost billions less than constructing brand new infrastructure.
Sounds like a neat idea, but how'd they do it and where are the numbers? This is what made the presentation so interesting: Between the two presenters, we had coverage from both the government and business side of the issue.
Dr. Arthur H. Rosenfeld represented the government side. He brought up detailed graphs of power consumption in the state from as far back as 1975 and included projections up to twenty years from now. More importantly though, he showed how dramatic the savings were once they started in on efficiency. Measured in actual dollar cost (because no one really does this for the environment) he illustrated how building a nuclear power plant was far more expensive than simply offering rebates to consumers to consume less.
The math works like this:
Say a nuclear power plant generates 100MW of power. After the cost of building the plant and that of paying the staff, and storage, AND the loss of said power in transmission (8%) you're left with X dollars total cost to power N homes
However, if the state were able to not use 100MW, your total costs include: Rebates to consumers, disposal of inefficient appliances, and public awareness campaigns.
This is a no-brainer.
So the government down there decided to offer the (privately-run) power utilities various incentives to choose efficiency over production. With the incentives (and support) in place, the corporations went out of their way in pursuit of efficiency because it's the cheaper option.
Enter Michael Messenger, Demand-side policy maker for one of the biggest utilities in the state. He explained how California was successfully moving toward a completely renewable power system as a result of the above policy and how it has corporate backing because more than anything else, it's financially sound.
He stressed the importance of government allowing the utilities to change plans and policy quickly, rather than waiting for political review. So long as the utilities remain under strong, but wide regulations, business can move at the speed required and everybody is happy.
A great evening really. Very enlightening. The organiser from the Sierra club let us go with one final plea: Please, please write your MPP about this issue and get them to reconsider the nuclear question. Both Messenger and Rosenfeld agreed that it was crazy for the Ontario government to be choosing this route and made special note of the fact that a number of the suggested studies on efficiency and renewables simply haven't been done for this province. "There's no rush" Rosenfeld said, "the research hasn't even been done yet".
And so here I suggest that if you live in Ontario (hell, even if you don't it's still a good idea) write to your MPP and again to McGuinty himself because he's the idiot making the decisions on this. Also, the Ontario Clean Air Alliance has a great site that makes it even easier.
And remember, a handwritten letter counts as 1000 emails with these people.