| Albertans have an appetite for power. We’re the economic powerhouse of the country, we drive the most powerful trucks and we are gaining more political power with every national election. In terms of consumption, we’re set to consume power at a rate even higher than our southern neighbours – Albertans have been increasing energy consumption at a rate of four per cent per year for the past decade and it’s expected to keep pace for the next decade compared to the U.S., where energy consumption is expected to grow by a smaller 1.6 per cent each year.
As for the sources of our energy – they’re not much cleaner than our oilsands. According to the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board, coal supplies 50 per cent, natural gas contributes 46 per cent and alternatives make up the rest. In terms of electricity, coal accounts for about 70 per cent of the province’s market.
Coal-fired power-generating stations are Canada’s biggest polluters. In Alberta, they’re responsible for approximately 90 per cent of our mercury emissions. Mercury builds in the food chain – especially fish – and creates human health problems such as brain, spinal cord, kidney and liver damage. In addition to mercury, coal plants emit sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide and particulates. The emissions of sulphur dioxide is what causes acid rain. Meanwhile, mining for coal strips the land and poisons aquifers, polluting our water. It’s no wonder The Economist last year dubbed burning coal "Environmental Enemy No. 1."
While Ontario has adopted a plan to close its coal plants by 2009, ours continue to increase in emissions. Epcor's Genesee plant west of Edmonton, had emissions of 8.9 tonnes during 2006. This 30 per cent increase over the previous year was due to the startup of a third generating unit. Provincial leaders were last year touting the fossil fuel as "clean coal," claiming emissions could practically be eliminated using new technologies. Those technologies, however, have never been proven.
In a recent Calgary Herald op-ed, David Schindler, professor of ecology at the University of Alberta, and Marlo Raynolds of the Pembina Institute, recommended, "accelerating the retirement of Alberta’s existing dirty coal plants or retrofitting them to capture CO2 so all major facilities are using carbon capture and storage by 2020."
The oxymoron of clean coal carries to nuclear energy – another questionable energy source currently being peddled as clean. Nuclear energy must be mined starting with an open-pit strip mine or in-situ leach mine of uranium. The uranium ore is converted into a stable form and transported to a processing facility where it undergoes various processing techniques until it is ready for the nuclear reactor. Full processing can take upwards of five years. Throughout the process of getting nuclear energy into a usable form, significant greenhouse gas pollution is created. Security and environmental hazards abound with nuclear waste. And the water necessary for cooling nuclear energy is considerable, not to mention the water pollution created from uranium mines and mills.
Proposals are on the table for nuclear facilities in Peace River and Whitecourt, but even if nuclear was a cleaner alternative to coal, the economic cost and long construction time for appropriate facilities puts nuclear power on the backburner while emissions reductions are required today. Again, both Schindler and Raynolds believe, "the nuclear debate is diverting our attention from the real actions Albertans can, and must, take to help curb global climate change."
A similar situation is happening in Ontario, where peat is being positioned as a possible substitute for coal. Advocates say it has a low sulphur content, minimal mercury, low ash and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Peat is dug up from bogs though, which are biodiversity hotspots and carbon sinks. When peat is extracted, bogs are ruined as they are drained and their surfaces stripped.
Jean Langlois, national campaigns director for the Sierra Club of Canada, agrees with Schindler and Raynolds, saying instead of looking at equally destructive alternate sources of energy, we should be focusing on efficiencies and conservation.
This claim has been made about offsetting schemes as well. Bullfrog Power made its debut in Alberta this month, promoting its 100 per cent green electricity. Bullfrog customers continue to pay their existing electricity supplier, but also pay Bullfrog to pump wind-generated power into the grid to offset usage. It sounds like a good idea – the problem is consumption is likely to stay the same. In addition, renewable energy growth in Alberta is capped at five per cent due to government regulations.
While offsetting can be part of an overall effort to create a more sustainable energy market, critics say offsetting makes consumption seem acceptable and increased consumption could result. British activists have set up www.cheatneutral.com as a spoof whereby cheaters pay money to someone who pledges to be faithful to their spouse.
Similarly, even renewable sources of energy have downsides. Wind generators come with disruptions to wildlife, they take up valuable land, create noise pollution and are esthetically controversial. Biofuels are generally derived from corn sources requiring irrigation and cultivation, and most of the corn grown is genetically modified with a whole host of other cultural and environmental implications. According to some geological engineers, this creates an energy negative. Solar and geothermal power are likely two of the most benign sources of energy, but installation costs can make these technologies restrictive.
The answer to our energy woes starts with conservation and increased efficiencies. Subsidies for efficient technologies, applying the full lifecycle costs to products, offsets and investment in renewable energy can serve to complement conservation efforts. Employing these measures does not give license to increase consumption. |
Copyright ©2007 FFWD. All rights reserved.