Shutting down Alberta coal plants will save money, lives

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
Shutting down Alberta coal plants will save money, lives, say medical experts, health minister

Doctors say the respiratory and cardiovascular health of Albertans will improve as soon as the first coal-powered plants shut down under the province’s new climate change plan.

But the president of the Coal Association of Canada said the plan to close all 18 of Alberta’s coal-fired electricity plants by 2030 is short-sighted and will hurt coal-miners, rural towns and companies.

“We’re talking about people losing their livelihoods,” said Robin Campbell, who recently became the president of the Calgary-based coal association after serving as Alberta’s finance minister before his defeat in the spring provincial election. Campbell estimated 3,000 coal miners work directly in Alberta’s coal plants. Many more work in businesses that supply the mines and plants. “What’s important for people to realize is there are real faces involved in the decision made by government on the shutting down of coal-fired generation. … We’re looking at causing some real harm to real families in Alberta by being short-sighted.”

On Sunday, the province released its climate change plan that includes an end to coal pollution by 2030. Twelve of the province’s 18 coal-fired electricity plants are already scheduled to shut down in the next 15 years, but the province will hire a negotiator in the coming weeks to work with the coal industry on timelines and compensation.

“What we are doing here is undertaking an orderly evolution and transformation of the electricity system,” Environment Minister Shannon Phillips said. “We have pledged that we will ensure that this orderly transition is fair for workers, fair for communities, fair for consumers, fair for the companies.”

Dr. Joe Vipond, a Calgary emergency physician, said Alberta’s coal plants produce 33 per cent of the sulphur dioxide in the province, 10 per cent of the nitric oxide in the province and about six per cent of industrial emissions and a specific type of particulate matter. That pollution contributes to asthma and breathing problems, heart attacks, strokes and irregular heart beats.

When TransAlta’s Sundance 1 and 2 plants west of Edmonton shut down temporarily between 2010 and 2013 because of engineering issues, Vipond said the air became cleaner.

“By focusing on these plants we can really make a huge impact,” Vipond said. “(Health improvements) should be pretty immediate right after those are shut down.”

A 2008 report by the Canadian Medical Association estimated that air pollution from coal cost Alberta $300 million in health-care costs, and caused 700 emergency room visits.

“By reaching zero coal emissions by 2030, we will reduce ER visits, protect Albertans and save hundreds of millions of dollars in costs that impact the health care system,” Health Minister Sarah Hoffman said Monday.

Shutting down Alberta coal plants will save money, lives, say medical experts, health minister | Edmonton Journal
 

Jinentonix

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 6, 2015
10,616
5,255
113
Olympus Mons
Yes, that experiment has worked so well in Ontario.
The idea in Ontario was sound. We have more than enough generating capacity without the coal-fired plants that we wouldn't have missed them. It was the idea to install turbines all over the landscape that made a complete mess of things in that regard.


I see things working out even worse for Alberta since they have no nuclear power plants that I'm aware of and a rather limited hydro-electric capacity.
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
Of course there is. Don't you find it odd that Alberta is closing coal fired plants where we have abundant clean coal while Germany is still building coal plants and burn brown coal but emissions are not a problem there?

"by 1930" is hardly... closing! As for what is actually occurring in Germany, post 2003, vis-a-vis those coal plants planned more than a decade ago:

 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
Of course there is. Don't you find it odd that Alberta is closing coal fired plants where we have abundant clean coal while Germany is still building coal plants and burn brown coal but emissions are not a problem there?

No I don't find it odd.

Why would that be odd?
 

skookumchuck

Council Member
Jan 19, 2012
2,467
0
36
Van Isle
You can post all the crap you want and it still will not explain why 2 of my relatives aged 84 and 85 have always lived at Wabamun lake, the site of a huge coal fired hydro plant for nearly 60 years.
I just lost an Aunt aged 94 in Alberta, east of Edmonton and downwind of Wabamun all her life. Since April 2010, TransAlta has shut down its last powerplant (Wabamun unit 4) that used the lake for its cooling water.
There are several more in their 80's and 90's still living in the Edmonton area. Nearly none have died of any lung disease other than some smokers and most of them including me age 70 ish, heated their homes with coal back in the day.
Must be the Ontario bunch moving there that has caused all this illness?
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
Thanks to McGuinty, Ontario is ahead of the curve.

It will take some time for Alberta to catch up.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
Shutting down coal power plants is a wise idea? Interesting.
Someone will crank up atomic power plants then? Build more dams? What? I would think it would be cheaper to either use more efficient burners or else collect the exhaust and reuse the components. SO² is easily converted to sulfuric acid, for instance.
 

DaSleeper

Trolling Hypocrites
May 27, 2007
33,676
1,665
113
Northern Ontario,
Really link please ?
What he probably meant was this......

Harper disappoints on coal-fired power plant regulations | Le conseil des canadiens

Regulations brought in after the shut down and doesn't look to me like Harper taking credit for the shut down

So where's the Harper government on this file?
"Under the new rules (being set by the Harper government), companies will not be able to commence construction of a new coal-fired power plant after July 1, 2015, unless it is equipped with (the questionable) carbon-capture and storage (CCS) technology... Companies would also have to close plants built before 1975 by the year 2020, and any plant built after 1975 would have to close by 2030, unless equipped with CCS."
"(While) draft (federal) rules had (initially) set a 45-year end-of-life limit on operating coal plants, the final version extends that to 50 years or 2030, whichever comes first. The change will mean several plants that would have faced closure between 2020 and 2030 will now be able to stay in operation." And while the Harper government described the regulation as "among the most stringent in the world", the rules were significantly weakened from what was first proposed in 2010.
In August 2011, the Council of Canadians signed an open letter along with 40 other organizations that states, “In our view, all coal-fired power plants need to face regulations to, at a minimum, reduce their considerable emissions of greenhouse gas pollution. Given the need to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions in both the short and long term, it is simply no longer acceptable to build new conventional coal plants in Canada, period.” This was in reference to the Alberta Utilities Commission's rush approval of Calgary-based Maxim Power's request to build a 500-megawatt coal-fired expansion to a generating plant near its mine at Grand Cache, Alberta.
In February of this year, the Canadian Press reported, "Canada can teach the United States some lessons on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird in a blunt rejoinder to recent chiding by the Obama administration on (Canada's record with respect to) climate change (and its lobbying in favour of the Keystone XL pipeline). Baird (said) that the U.S. should actually be following Canada's lead on working to cut back on the use of coal-fired electricity generation." But Greenpeace's Keith Stewart noted, "Baird shouldn't try to take credit for Ontario's phase out of coal-fired electricity, although environmentalists would welcome federal assistance in making progress in other provinces. The reality, however, is that the federal coal regulations delay any serious action until after 2025."