View or search for all towns »


100% renewable energy petition

Hi Rosslanders,

Please sign the petition today.

We want to encourage and support Rossland City Council to follow Nelson's lead, and steer us into a more sustainable future.

For details see the Eco Society's blue ad  (one of the paid ads with Tails, Purist Pantry etc)


Lets not follow their lead. Renewable energy is a fairy tale that is costly and very inefficient. In BC we have a very low carbon energy mix with Hydro leading the way. Ontario is the second cleanest with Nuclear power producing up to 60-70% of their base load electricity. Alberta and Saskatchewan need to clean up their act as they produce most of their electricity with Coal. China and India are building a fleet of Nuclear reactors that will lessen their reliance on fossil fuels. With the oncoming onslaught of Electric vehicles, I hope that China, India and other huge polluters clean up their act. Locally we should do our part but the City of Rossland should not dump money into the renewable energy dream. I do like and support the work this society is doing with local food production and conservation.  

I should clarify the 100% Renewable is a dream. Definetly should be in the mix of energy production in place of fossil fuel generation. So in BC, a little more Renewable and less Natural Gas would put us more in the green but as of now BC has the lowest Carbon emissions in regards to electricity production in Canada. Cheers!

100% renewable is a dream why? BC already meets 94% of power demands with renewable sources, what’s stopping us from offsetting the last 6%? 

Amen, Cody.

Kevin, you do raise some good points about the big picture and the changes that need to happen elsewhere.

FYI - a motion will be brought to Rossland council on Jan 21, so if you support the move to see more renewables in our region, sign the petition and help show city council this matters to you.

So let’s pay more taxes to make us feel good! Yippee, I can hardly wait.....


The second they can tax our air they will ...

Like I was saying, Renewable energy(Solar + Wind) is very costly and so inefficient in many ways. Also toxic when you take into account the Batteries needed to store the produced electricity because of the huge inefficiency.  Google Biomass and tell me if this is a clean and ethical way to produce electricity. The BC government is building another damn, Site-C, that will produce 5100 GWH of clean, carbon free electricity per year. Today, BC's total dam production is around 50,000 GWH yearly. So site C will a add 10% increase in our Hydro production per year. SO Cody, will this 10% increase offset the 6% you stated? Sure will. Problem is the electric vehicle revolution is coming. Our world is being electrified! The demand for electricity is going to skyrocket. In fact, if 1/2 the vehicles go electric by 2050, which is a low estimate, we are going to need 3-4 more Site-C dams just to keep up with demand. This does not take into account population growth. Lets take Hydro power out of the renewable mix. So Biomass, wind and solar.  Think about how many solar panels, wind turbines and combustable biomass plants it takes to make up just 1 Dam let alone the 6% Cody wants to offset. Our land would be covered with a bunch of unsightly, toxic scrap that produces electrcity at best 25% of the time! I could go on....

    Getting back to the smaller picture locally. We have a clean energy mix in BC. The Brochure from this society believes our electricity consumption will go down in the future. It will not! Their picture of electricity production and future estimates of electricity usage is skewed. Way Off IMO. Rossland should not be throwing money into the energy game. We pay enough for our electrcity. We are going to pay more in the future for expansion of electricity production to BC Hydro through our provincial taxes. Lets not add more burden to the Rossland city tax payer for the renewable energy fairy tale. Cheers!


Nobody is advocating replacement of dams with wind or solar. You admit that half of all vehicles sold by 2050 will be electric (and that it’s a low estimate). You are correct, and in fact, BC has actually committed to 100% electric new vehicle sales by 2040. 

So we can take it for granted that demand on the grid will increase in the future. We agree on that. What I don’t understand is what you assume will be the best way of dealing with this demand, and why you think anyone is advocating meeting our future energy needs with “unsightly toxic scrap”.

So where should the dollars go? Should we invest in smarter electrical grids, distributed generation and storage, modernized Infrastructure to prepare for your agreed inevitable electric revolution? No? It’s really not clear to me what you’re arguing against other than a hypothetical tax increase. It’s far more expensive to deal with issues on the basis of urgency rather than with foresight and planning.

Let's encourage Rossland City Council to put a ban on plastic bags! That's a great place to start & would not cost taxpayers anything.  It blows me away to still see Ferraro's handing out so many... & with no option of paper :(  (I always take a box if I forget my reusable bag though at least) - I have been to many places/cities/towns across Canada and the US and most places offer paper bags, and ALL but maybe 1% of them charge you to take them (which upsets people so they buy reusable anyways!) Funny how that works.

Until we start practising more renewable and environmentally ethical baby steps into the kiddie pool there probably isn't a point taking a leaping dive into the ocean...

The ones that are advocating replacing Hydro with other renewables is the Society. Their future projected energy mix by 2050 is as follows......43.7% Hydro electric , 27.2% Solar, 11.8% Biomass electricity, 10.6 Biomass Heat and 6.7% Renewable Natural Gas.  They also project our electricity usage will go up around 19% by 2050. So I dont agree with the numbers. I did sign their petition before reading the pamphlet...LoL

Yup as of now Solar Panels end up in the Landfill after their short life. They are full of Toxic Junk and nobody is recycling them at this time. I hope that changes. Also to create 27% of our electrcity from solar is unrealistic. How much power would solar panels have generated this week here in the West Kootenays? 

Yes I always want to avoid paying more taxes. 

In light of that info I agree with you- I couldn’t find their projected mix on the website so thanks for reposting it here. Not a lot of point in diluting our power generation with less efficient and less eco-friendly tech when hydro is already so attractive; I’d be interested to see the justification for their numbers


I just came in to say that this is the most civil discussion that I have seen on bhubble maybe ever. While I take secret (and shameful) pleasure in reading the low brow arguments, it really is a breath of fresh air to see an actual intelligent discussion.

We rely on an economic system that is based upon surplus and exponential growth. In short, this means that anything and everything will be exploited in order to achieve profit and endless consumption.

Growth might work in a fictional world like finance, just move the decimal place. But it isn't sustainable in the real finite world. Green washing techniques have been proven time and time again to be a hoax only used to increase consumption. The more 'energy efficient' something is claimed to be, in the short term, more of it is consumed. If you're unsure about something, follow the money. The Real Estate Foundation of BC is a major sponsor of the EcoSociety report.

The term renewable is following the same playbook used to promote the recycling trend. The 3 Rs program used actually increased the levels of pollution on this planet. The program just moved the environmental responsibility of the life cycle of product from the company to the general public and to future unborn generations. The next item the public is willingly contributing to and is growing exponentially is the collection of personal data.

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology in which nobody understands anything about science and technology. And this combustible mixture of ignorance and power sooner or later is going to blow up in our faces.” Carl Sagan, 1996

Here here! To civil discussion!

While I have been working recently with the EcoSociety to get the word out on this campaign, I absolutely encourage people to get informed, make their own decision, and not simply sign onto to things because it matches their identity or fanciful notions of an ideal future - I'm working on this myself.

The proposed energy mix Kevin has mentioned can be found here, with more detailed elaboration and methodology in the full report. EcoSociety staff have suggested this proposal be taken with a grain of salt. It was put together by a Danish masters student who interned with the EcoSociety in 2017 - no offense to masters students or anything. While the author considered many factors he also admitted to some shortcomings in his methodology, in particular lack of relevant data. The EcoSociety has just hired an Energy Planning Director to re-engage with the planning process more in earnest and I am interested to see what they come up with. Other energy sources like biogas (or biomethane) and biomass are being used in many areas of North America and might be viable on a regional scale - no "toxic scrap", making use of existing resources, albeit compartively limited generation capacity vs large-scale hydro.

A tricky point in the discussion here is the distinction between numbers for electricty generation and overall energy. The EcoSociety report figures we currently have 97% renewable electricty in our region, so Kevin is right to say that what many are advocating/predicting is shifting more transportation to electric.

I think it is fair to say that the EcoSociety's 2017 model is a dream scenario, but perhaps still informative and helpful for developing targets. For example, the projected 34% overall demand drop comes mostly from a 75% reduction in transportation demand, which the author attributes to the increased efficiency of electric vehicles vs gas (apparently 400% at present). Will 100% of the vehicles on the road in 2050 be electric? Not likely... Could efficiency improve futher? Mabye... As well, the author cites a third-party report prepared for Fortis that includes "electric energy economic savings potential" of 25% and 30% for residential and commercial sectors, respectively, and figures that this potential savings will be fully realized in order to balance the projected demand increases for electricity (transportation aside). Hmm...? Finally, heating demand was simply left as is due to lack of data, though it could reasonably decline due to changes in building code and retrofit programs.