Energy in Canada #2

With increased pressure to reduce greenhouse gases while continuing to meet increased demand for energy, more Canadians are looking to nuclear as a possible solution to energy security. Read More

EMISSION-FREE ENERGY
North America’s largest source of emission-free energy is nuclear. But Canadians still know relatively little about it, the environmental issues surrounding it and the role it plays in supplying our energy demands. Read More

SECURING OUR ENERGY FUTURE
As Canada looks to nuclear energy to meet future demands for more efficient energy, some are questioning the source’s reliability. But Canada’s nuclear industry continues to be a proven performer. Read More

AN AFFORDABLE ALTERNATIVE
When we think of the benefits and impacts of nuclear energy production and use, environmental concerns are often top-of-mind along with issues of safety. But the economics are also important to consider. Read More

BUILDING ON OUR EXPERIENCE
More than 60 years of experience in the nuclear industry has helped showcase Canada’s commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and providing reliable and safe energy. Read More

EXPLORING POSSIBILITIES The Canadian Nuclear Association recently launched a new nuclear science technology website for Grade 9-12 students. The learning modules have been developed respecting the Pan Canadian Framework guidelines and provincial curriculum requirements for teachers in general science, environmental science, biology, physics, chemistry, geography, history, social studies and world issues.

The modules focus on eight key areas including: Canada’s Nuclear History, Atomic Theory, What is Radiation?, Biological Effects of Radiation, World Energy Sources, Nuclear Technology at Work, Safety in the Nuclear Industry and Career information.

The new materials help students and teachers examine the science and issues related to nuclear technology. Included are more than 50 lesson plans, classroom activities, project descriptions and questions and answer sheets to support teaching and learning.

Opportunity to get it right

The Conservatives in Ottawa are more determined than ever to engage the United States in pursuing coordinated energy and environmental policies which could evolve into contributing much-needed energy stability in what Environment Minister Jim Prentice calls “a very volatile world.”

He set out his priorities in a speech to the Canadian Council of Chief Executives in Toronto the morning of Barack Obama’s inauguration as the 44th U.S. President, welcoming much-anticipated American re-engagement in multilateral climate change negotiations.

Prentice reiterated the minority administration’s desire for “an effective multilateral climate change agreement for the years ahead.” The key elements would be joint action on greenhouse gas emissions and a transition to “a larger and cleaner supply of both fuel and power.” It wouldn’t be easy because various “actors and interests” influence how much progress each federal government can achieve.

He said the Conservatives’ target of a 20% reduction in emissions from 2006 levels by 2020 is “ambitious but achievable” unlike the previous Liberal government’s unfulfilled Kyoto Protocol commitments.

As expected, the starting point remains an intensity-based performance standard rather than what Prentice called “a so-called hard cap-and-trade regime” but the latter would eventually become the order of the day as Canada gained more experience and as the international policy environment evolved.

“A cap-and-trade system will be insufficient alone to get the job done,” Prentice said. “We will need some other common instruments – like a shared target for low carbon power generation, a common bio-fuel mandate, common fuel efficiency standards, and potentially a common low carbon transportation fuel standard for North America, a standard that would seek to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels into the future, based on emissions measured over the complete lifecycle of various fuels from production site to the tailpipe.”

The current economic downturn underscored the importance of avoiding anything which would exacerbate matters. “We will seek to ensure that federal policies are coordinated,” he said. “We want federal climate change regulations to work in tandem with tax, technology, tariff and other policies to promote timely domestic investment and offset weak U.S. demand.” He also stressed the importance of coordinated and harmonized federal-provincial policies.

A bilateral deal also meant a concerted move to reduce North American dependence on “foreign” oil. “Energy insecurity is the large and growing gorilla in the room,” Prentice said, noting that whereas the U.S. imported only 10% of its crude oil just four decades ago, it now imported 60% and faced the prospect of that rising to 80% by 2020.

“Smart grids and conservation, renewable fuels and power . . . are all important, but in an `80/20′ world, they will represent only the `20′, at least until the 2020s. It is the other 80% we have to worry about. In Europe, the `80%’ of energy insecurity means oil and natural gas. And here in North America, with our substantial natural gas reserves, the `80′ means oil.”

Prentice underscored Canada’s role in the “American energy equation” as the main U.S. source of crude, natural gas and electricity and as “an indispensable supplier” to the northern tier states.

“We’re not just a supplier; we’re a partner. . . . We have the capacity to play an even larger role in the North American energy solution. We’re the only nation in the world outside the Persian Gulf region with substantial proven oil reserves; we’re the best way to get Alaskan gas to southern markets; and we’re a country with substantial untapped natural gas deposits and clean hydropower potential – an obvious way for many border states to reduce their reliance on coal-fired power.”

Hot off the press – and in the air

Befitting its status as our energy engine, Alberta continues to account for the country’s largest output of greenhouse gases (GHG). The latest numbers, courtesy of Statistics Canada and Environment Canada, show Alberta was responsible for 114,408,432 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) in 2007.

Tallied up from 106 facilities required to report GHGs under the auspices of the federal Facility Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting Program, Alberta’s output represented 41% of the country’s overall total of 278,093,770 tonnes emitted by 350 facilities. That was statistically in line with Canada’s annual output since 2003 as most jurisdictions showed no significant change over the four years covered in the latest summary. However, Alberta and Saskatchewan emissions were up, mainly due to an increased number of facilities supplying data.

However, the dubious distinction of being the largest single-point source of GHGs in 2007 went to Ontario Hydro’s coal-fired Nanticoke generating station on the shore of Lake Erie — 17,887,649 tonnes of CO2e, which was mostly CO2 with lesser amounts of methane (NH4) and nitrous oxide (NO2).

As usual, expressed in tonnes of CO2e, the latest year’s total was dominated by 262,733,182 tonnes of CO2, 8,355,805 of CH4, 4,337,760 of N20, 30,739 of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), 2,301,959 of perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and 344,325 of sulphur hexafluoride (SF6).

Ontario reported the second-highest CO2e total in 2007, 73,910,625 tonnes with the other jurisdictions tonnages as follows: Quebec, 23,373,453; Saskatchewan, 22,929,832; British Columbia, 12,702,944; Nova Scotia, 11,414,536; New Brunswick, 10,902,038; Newfoundland & Labrador, 5,427,219; Manitoba, 2,401,753; Northwest Territories, 520,970; and Prince Edward Island, 101,967.

Although Alberta emitted the most CO2, Ontario was responsible for the greatest amounts of CH4, N20, HFCs AND SF6 while Quebec topped the PFC hit list.

While Nanticoke topped the single-point source rankings, Syncrude Canada’s Mildred Lake and Aurora North plants in Fort McMurray, Alta. were in second place with a combined 14,936,539 tonnes, and Epcor Power Generation’s coal-fired Genesee plant in Warburg, Alta. was third at 9,481,997 tonnes.

The utilities sector, No. 21 as defined by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code, accounted for 44% of the 2007 GHG output in Canada compared with 35% by the manufacturing sector (NAICS 31-33), 20% by the mining, quarrying and oil and gas extraction sector (NAICS 21) and the remaining 5% by a variety of smaller sources.

Within NAICS 21, oil and gas extraction companies as a subsector accounted for 89%, metal ore mining for six per cent, coal mining for 3% and non-metallic mining and quarrying for 2%. 

The full report is available at Environment Canada.

Green cows

The focus of most eco-technology is improving the efficiency of things in order to minimize their carbon footprint. Car manufacturers aim for more fuel efficient cars, manufacturers to try for streamlined processes and everywhere people are scaling back to use less energy.

And now biotechnologists are looking at ways to increase the efficiency of cows. 

A study presented by Cornell University and Monsanto revealed that bovine somatotropin or bST, also called bovine growth hormone (BGH), a protein hormone produced in the pituitary glands of cattle, could make a real difference.  Using BGH could reduce the overall carbon footprint by as much as 9 per cent.  

Research shows that cows given BGH can produce 10 more pounds of milk per day. In terms of eco inputs, that means less land is required, less water and feed is consumed, and less fuel is needed. On the other side of the eco-quation, these high-performance cows produce less manure and greenhouse gas per unit of output.

Translated into energy usage, BGH on a large scale could save enough electricity to power 15,000 households; generate enough heat for 16,000 households; and save enough water to supply 10,000 households. The reduction in the carbon footprint is equivalent to removing 400,000 cars from the road or planting 300 million trees.

Put another way, a 150-cow dairy producing 10 more pounds of milk per cow would be equivalent to removing 38 cars from the road or planting 28,000 trees. 

Indeed, biotechnology is making the most unlikely eco-friendly industry a little easier on our environment with what amounts to a simple solution to the problem: instead of making more, make things better.

How Canadian provinces measure up on greenhouse gas emissions

Canada, as a signatory nation to the Kyoto Protocol, is obligated to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 6 per cent below 1990 levels.  This is supposed to have happened by, well, now: from 2008 – 2012.  No one is pretending that’s possible.  

What’s the dilemma?  Canada signed Kyoto as a single entity, but the reality is when it comes to energy and emissions, the federal government only has so much authority.  Energy is famously, indeed even notoriously, within the purview of provincial governments.

If Canada as a whole is to even approach its Kyoto targets, all ten provinces must chart their own courses.  Can it be done?  It can in Quebec, where David Suzuki, among others, note with admiration and glee that the province has achieved a fourth consecutive year of reducing emissions.  

In this, Quebec is by far Canada’s leader.  Via measures as broad as carbon and petroleum taxes, a green fund, expanded public transit, even cutting highway speed limits, the province is showing Kyoto targets are possible.  

The rest?  Laggards?  

No other provinces have so clear a vision as Quebec’s Climate Change Action Plan, enacted in 2006. Take Alberta, for example. Emissions have increased by 36 per cent since 1990, moving the province ahead of big, industrial Ontario for the “lead” in provincial emissions.  Not per capita, mind you, but overall.  

Alberta, for its part, says it’s impossible to compare apples to oranges. It shouldn’t be held accountable for producing the energy the rest of the world (and country) eagerly consumes. Whether that’s true or not is beside the point.  

Quebec has demonstrated that real progress can be made in a short timeframe. Only two years since implementing its comprehensive (and rather ambitious) action plan, Quebec has seen measurable results.

Carbon auditing for vehicles the first step to reducing vehicle emissions

When it comes to moving towards a low-carbon economy, to borrow a line from Former US President Bill Clinton, it’s the cars, stupid. 

Vehicle transportation is the single-largest contributor of excess carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses.  So any serious effort to counteract climate change must tackle the problem of emissions from vehicles. But how do you know what you are facing if you can’t quantify the problem? 

That’s where Zerofootprint and Skymeter Corporation come in. The two companies have entered a partnership to measure vehicular greenhouse gas emissions.  Toronto-based Skymeter specializes in data-services and billing-delivery metering services and Zerofootprint, as their name implies, facilitates reducing our collective footprint.

Their initial applications focus on highly accurate measurement of corporate and individual carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles, combining GPS and carbon-measurement tools.  The purpose of their tools is to quantify the vehicle carbon emission problem, the key to devising intelligent solutions.

One such solution is a simple one: encourage drivers to drive less. Skymeter proposes an incentive-based tolling system that offers drivers incentives to reduce driving. Drivers would be rewarded for reducing their emissions and energy consumption in the form of tax credits instead of punished with punitive taxes and user fees.

Victoria Regional Transit uses a similar method of changing driving habits. It promotes sustainable transportation with a monthly bus pass reward program. Monthly pass holders are permitted to claim a non-refundable tax credit on their income tax return for using a sustainable mode of transport.

It goes to show you that sometimes, the carrot works better than the stick.

Speech from the Throne

The devil, as they say, is in the details. But getting details about energy and climate change elements of the latest Throne Speech is proving to be a devil of a job.

Opening the 40th Parliament, the speech was the customary outline of the government’s policy agenda, a key element of which is securing Canada’s energy future “by developing our rich energy resources and pursuing new cleaner energy supplies, including further development of natural gas resources in Canada’s North.” 

Explaining that geography and climate necessitate affordable and reliable energy, the government said northern gas represents not only an untapped source of “clean” fuel but also an “unequalled avenue to creating economic opportunities for northern people.” So expect fewer regulatory obstacles to pipeline extensions if the National Energy Board goes along.

But with a global economic crisis threatening our future, concern for the environment had to be tempered with what the Conservatives labeled a “realistic, responsible approach” to climate change. They reiterated their plan to curb greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent by 2020 “while . . . ensuring that Canada’s actions going forward remain comparable to what our partners in the United States, Europe and other industrialized countries undertake.” 

The Conservatives pledged to work with all stakeholders “to develop and implement a North America-wide cap and trade system for greenhouse gases and an effective international protocol for the post-2012 period.” A companion commitment to generating 90 per cent of Canada’s electricity from non-emitting sources would include expanded nuclear and hydroelectric capacity. 

The immediate aftermath saw ministers echoing generalities of the Throne Speech, but avoiding details or further explanation.

New Democratic Party Leader Jack Layton said his party was prepared to support the minority government if it moved away from its previously-stated preference for “intensity-based” emissions caps. Without that, he suggested, an intensity-based North American regime was impracticable because U.S. president-elect Barack Obama had rejected it “very explicitly”. 

On the other hand, there would be the devil to pay for Conservatives among core supporters in the oil and gas-producing provinces. Details will likely be a long time coming.

Partners in Project Green

If everyone “knows better”, why are there still so many laggards when it comes to responsible environmental practices?  

You know the answer already: cost.  Unfortunately, it’s often cheaper to do things the old way. And many businesses live in a short-term results world.  

That’s why Partners in Project Green (PPG) is so exciting.  Officially launched on October 9, this collaborative venture transforms 12,000 hectares around Pearson International Airport into the Pearson Eco-Business Zone. 

Sounds great, right?  But what does that actually mean?  

Essentially, 12,500 businesses, employing some 355,000 people, are partnering to deliver a united green strategy.  The Partners in Project Green initiative includes transit, a green parking lot program, eco-efficiency audits, and shared-cost implementation programs.  

Set aside the good corporate citizenship and environmental impact for a moment, and think like a cold-blooded capitalist: this represents an enormous business opportunity.  By acting collaboratively, businesses in the eco-business zone expect to reduce the investment and operating costs of adopting eco-friendly practices. 

Even if the worst case scenario comes true and businesses within the Pearson zone break even or lose money on the project, there are still ample benefits to go around.  It’s smart branding, for one.  Being on the vanguard of progressive change is seldom a bad thing for brand perception.  

Oh, and it will significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  That’s still the name of the game, right?

A stocking full of coal or an atmosphere full of gas?

The more concerned about climate change we get, the more difficult it can be to absorb the only thing more invisible and pervasive than greenhouse gas: guilt. Taking the weight of an entire planet on your shoulders is tiring work, to be sure, and every decision we make to reduce our carbon footprint seems impossibly insignificant when compared to kilotonnes of annual Canadian emissions.

But if years of dealing with crushing guilt has taught us anything, it’s surely that the best (or, at least, easiest) way to defray our feelings of inadequacy are to point fingers. And where better than into our past?

While conventional wisdom tells us that our current levels of pollution far outstrip our past’s, researchers at Reno, NV’s Desert Research Institute have found the highest levels of heavy metals in arctic ice from the periods of highest coal use, namely about a century ago. Taken from Greenland, the core samples suggest that it was during the time that North America and Europe were still voraciously consuming impurity-laden coal that the most pollution was created, as much as two to five times more than our current levels, which are a byproduct of cleaner-burning oil and gas.

It’s important not to read too much into the discovery, assuming, that is, you’re held back by the bounds of personal environmental restraint and the recognition that making more responsible choices about your energy use is an important responsibility.

In the absence of those, however, you’re free to blame your great-great grandfather for everything from the melting arctic ice shelves to your disappearing beer. Personally, I never liked him anyway.

Green noise

The New York Times recently ran an article on the increasing problem of “green noise,” referring to the constant barrage of often contradictory environmental messages we receive every day. Which is better, for example: a reusable plastic containers or a biodegradable paper one? Should we walk to the store to buy milk or are the carbon offsets for organic milk great enough to let us drive?

As the article points out, despite the increasingly green tone of our language sometimes its semantics actually stop concrete action. Add to that how a variety of “green” labels from different companies are further confusing consumers, and green noise starts to look like more than simple nuisance.

Academic Brad Benz raised the same issue in his “Let It Green: The Ecoization Of The Lexicon,” noting that the “greenwashing” of language can be traced to 1969 with the introduction of two German political parties: Grüne Aktion Zukunft (Green Campaign for the Future) and grüne Listen (Green Lists). Three decades later, the language has only gotten greener, adding enough new terms (the Times article itself cites five more: “green backlash,” “green message,” “green fatigue,” “green products” and “green habits”) to require specialized glossaries.

But while our green language is a major contributor to green noise, it’s only one part of the larger picture. For one, British environmentalist Chris Goodall and his book, How to Live a Low Carbon Life, demonstrate how driving to the store can actually produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions than walking there to pick up a carton of milk.

Cautioning that proving vehicle exhaust is less intensive than agricultural greenhouse contributions is not simply an incentive to drive instead of drinking milk, Goodall’s points still show green noise’s paralyzing potential. When the discussion over greening the world never ends, when do we have time to go about the business of actually doing it?

Next Page »