Think food scrap and anaerobic digesters for energy and compost

You are correct in noting that what appears to be a "green" action is not always truly green. The indication that "renewable energy" is the answer to a more sustainable future, could not be further from the truth. Renewables because of their intermittent nature require back up generation from fossil fuels since baseload in Ontario is covered by nuclear and hydro. (75% emission free BTW) Fossil fuels such as Natural Gas and Coal generation are quick and responsive and therefore must sit in spinning reserve waiting for wind to shut down. Because of this phenomena these forms of generation actually end up being less efficient and subsequently produced more emissions. eg. think about your car on the highway verses in city driving. Note also that in Europe after 15 years of "Renewables" not one coal generation plant has been shut down. Germany is presently construction 5 new coal generation plants because of the unfounded fears surrounding refurbishing their Nuclear. "Renewables" are hugely innefficient and provide 50% of the time 10% of the nameplate capacity, therefore those who believe we are on the right track in using these to replace coal generation in Ontario are deluding themselves. Also if emissions are your concern, than in Ontario, why not insist on all of the proper scrubbers. Out of the 5 coal plants, not one has all of the proper scrubbers. Renewables are hugely expensive and cannot replace things like nuclear and coal. As for using the distinction of alternatives vs renewables you are playing semantics, as nuclear is part of the conventional generation system along with hydro. Note also that using municipal waste for generation is much better than what is happening presently in most municipalities in Ontario which is simply burning the methane emissions from local landfill sites. It's not a matter of putting things in a good category vs bad, it's matter of choosing the right solution using scientific methodology that can address our needs. In my 4 years of researching things like Wind energy and our energy system in Ontario, renewables are expensive, unreliable, cannot reduce the use of coal

Well, let's not expect an immediate and total solution. Since renewable technologies are still in development, and conventional technologies are workable and relatively economical, we need to change via a series of steps. We need to keep up with consumer energy demands, so we cannot just shut down current power plants. But just because renewables are not ready to replace fossil fuels does not mean that we shouldn’t continue to develop and utilize them. It makes good sense to augment our power grid with renewable sources. We can use renewables while they are available (such as solar power while the sun is shining) and fall back upon fossil fuels when renewables are unavailable (such as at night). Okay, it’s not quite that simple (we cannot just turn fossil fueled systems on and off – they must operate continuously) but we can develop technology to allow us to merge sources and scale back fossil fuels. Like other technologies, renewable sources will become more reliable and cost effective as they are developed further. Smart power companies realize that fossil fuels are getting scarce and that public sentiment is turning against them, so they are investing in alternatives and renewables.  
 
We do need better consumer education about how to conserve and recycle, as well as make better choices (such as the glass bottle vs. aluminum can example in the article). We “tree huggers” are partly to blame for that – we’ve spent too much time harping that there is a problem and not enough time educating consumers about what they can do today. We don’t need to play Washington’s finger pointing game. It is debatable that real solutions can come from legislature, especially with so many special interest groups and lobbyists trying to influence policies and votes. Why wait for Government to lead? We can do it for ourselves in our own communities. 
 

Collete refers to "the unfounded fears surrounding refurbishing their Nuclear." 
 
I beg to differ; the fears are quite well-founded. Nuclear is an extremely dirty technology, both in terms of carbon impact (looking at the entire fuel cycle rather than the sole step of fission), with serious health and safety risk, threat of terrorism or accident, unreliable waste storage, and many other problems. Creating a nuclear power industry before there was any means to deal with the waste was one of the most environmentally irresponsible acts of all time. I wrote a whole book on this 
 
--Shel Horowitz, primary author of Guerrilla Marketing Goes Green and a safe energy advocate since the 1970s.

What the above postings are forgetting is that things like wind and solar cannot exist without fossil fuel as back-up, which makes the latter inefficient. Here in Ontario it is not the renewables which are replacing coal generation, it is in fact Natural gas. A limited resource more efficiently used in home heating but instead disguised here in Ontario as a cleaner source of electrical generation rather than install the proper scrubbers on all 4 coal generating plants.  
 
 
 
As for the idea that we can development technology to merge solar and wind with fossil fuel back-up, this is the constant marketing spin of wind developers who keep on telling us that we need to start somewhere, so let us go ahead with our huge industrial developments which impose upon residents, lower property values, low frequency noise emissions, and brutal killing of wildlife, into your rural areas because we need to do this for the sake of Global warming. Their belief is that urgency is so great, we need to do something, yet experience coming out of Europe and Texas and Colorado is showing that wind and solar just don't cut it when it comes to C02 savings and in fact are constributing to greater emissions as well as huge increases in electricity rates.  
 
It's not the idea that the electricity system is broken, it's a matter of understanding what our society needs as an energy source in order to maintain the buildings we work in, the hospitals we use to maintain health, or the schools our children get their education. This very successful, comfortable, safe society needs large amounts of reliable, efficient, and dispatchable electricity. Because of the laws of Thermodynamics, renewables such as wind and solar just don't cut it and never will.  
 
 
 
As for the Nuclear waste scare, my readings are revealing that these fuel rods are now being reused and the technology has improved to reduce the waste. The amounts take up a very small area and after 50 years of Nuclear in Ontario, we have enjoyed large amounts of reliable, dispatchable electricity at low cost. Mr Horowitz should note that wind and solar also have a large carbon cost when you consider the raw materials (steel, rare earths, very large amounts of concrete) used to construct these.

According to Steve Aplin an Ottawa-based energy analyst, published in Canadian Energy Issues in 2009 he states "that the wind/gas pairing in Ontario with nuclear/coal, you may be surprised to see that nuclear/coal is actually cleaner. Ten thousand MW with wind/gas would dump over 19 million metric 
 
tons of carbon dioxide and other bona fide air pollutants into the air every year." The sad and often overlooked part in all of this is the fact that, renewables such as wind and solar do not replace the need for conventional generation. The wind industry constantly promote that they only form a part of the energy needs which leads us to ASSUME that they can replace to some extent fossil fuels or other conventional sources. Comparisons are often made of how many windmills it would take to eliminate the need for a conventional power plant. These comparisons are totally meaningless because wind turbines do not add any megawatts to the grid when the wind is not blowing. Wind turbines must be paired with some other power plant or energy storage device to add capacity to the grid. The latter demands things like pumped water storage and in Ontario that would mean having to hold back all of Niagara Falls. It will be gas therefore that will be the mainstay in the wind/gas pairing where gas will most likely produce close to 70% of the time because wind at best is providing 30% of it's name plate capacity per year (with many times not providing anything). So you see Emily it's not about whether a turbine is sited properly, it's a matter of whether is can do the job and this is the point I am trying to get across. Wind and solar simply cannot meet the demands of a modern electrical grid so why are we being forced to support these sources in some cases, at 70% of their revenues based on this possibility that the technology will get better. Germany has had the technology for over 15 years, and in an independent report they have found that the "German renewable energy policy, and in particular the adopted feed-in tariff scheme, has failed to harness the market incentives needed to ensure a viable and cost-effective introduction of renewable energies into the country’s energy portfolio. To the contrary, the government’s support mechanisms have in many respects subverted these incentives, resulting in massive expenditures that show little long-term promise for stimulating the economy, protecting the environment, or increasing energy security." 
 
Thank you for allowing my postings.  
 
 
 

Colette, 
 
Yes, of course the is a carbon cost to any form of energy generation. And the more centralized, the higher the carbon cost and other environmental impact. I think eventually as a society we will realize that most energy should be generated right where it's used--no transmission losses and close to no habitat disruption, etc. Flat roofs are a huge and largely untapped resource for both power generation and agriculture. Slanted roofs are often suited for solar. Scoop-shaped small vertical wind turbines about the size of oil drums are very promising. In-river hydro that does not require a dam--very promising. Nuclear? A disaster in the making, impossible to do small-scale, highly risky and a net consumer of power with a huge carbon impact.

Shel, Easily said when you are in the business of selling home based green energy. My experience through friends and collegues who have small scale turbines and solar panels has shown that these are enormously expensive and very restrictive in your energy usage. Neighbours with a small scale turbine finally gave it up because of the cost they had to incur to replace a gas generator (needed for back-up)for the 3rd time and the new marine batteries that needed to be replaced only after 3 years. From my readings there is great hope with small scale nuclear that could feed a subdivision of homes with waste the size of a basketball.

Colette, that's not the business I'm in. I have been a very happy *consumer* with my solar hot water system (not quite as happy with my little 1KW PV, I confess). 
 
I'm a marketer specializing in working with green companies who want to reach green consumers. However, I did some in-depth research on nuclear power, and wrote my first book in why it's a terrible idea. And let me tell you--I have organized citizen movements in the past. Anyone tries to put a nuke within 50 miles of me, I will organize loud and consistent opposition. 
 
This is my final comment on this thread.

I have to disagree with Colette about the expense of solar energy panels. As my blog will show,alternative energy can be very inexpensive and extremely effective. They do not need to be put in by a solar energy company. Review some of the material to see. 
http://www.alternativeenergy.mymtaplace.com

You site leeds to a commercial venue promoting solar panels and home based wind turbines. No detail about the cost of the units without buying the book. Lots of marketing spin with no reference as to how using solar reduces my energy costs. Solar panels in general are rated as 12%to 15% efficient. One panel provides perhaps 1 kwh of electricity, when the sun is shining, that's enough for one lightbulb. The average home uses 800 kwh per month.