Canada's Energy Future?

[Timetrvlr]

I see that we already have a Peak Oil thread going. I'd like to start a discussion of a larger issue as I see it, the World Energy Crisis of which Peak Oil is a part. Every country is facing an energy crisis now, some are more desperate than others to participate in the wealth that energy can provide. In this country, Ontario is facing blackouts next summer because of energy shortages. What should we be doing about it?

There are many possible solutions, each with it's own pro's and con's. One thing I've noted is that we have a several hundred years supply of coal in this country. When push comes to shove, I think it will be used because we have a large supply of it and it's a relatively cheap fuel. I think we should burn "clean coal" and capture all the emissions. It can be done, the technology is available now. We can even retrofit existing coal-burning power plants with emission-capture technology.

I ran across a good article in BBC News. An excerpt from the link:

Clean coal technology (CCT) has entered policy parlance as an umbrella term for all the various strands of research and development to improve the environmental performance of coal-fired plants.

The term is widely used to describe a complete process in which the coal is gasified (i.e. turned into a gas as opposed to the conventional method of burning the coal itself in a combustion boiler), burnt to power a turbine, and the carbon dioxide and other emissions captured for storage away from the atmosphere.

 

[the caracal kid]

i think nuclear is the way canada should go.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Canada's Energy Futur

I picked hydro, because our geography also allows us to produce hydrogen for powering automobiles from that.

There is no single answer though. Our coasts can use tidal generators. Wind works in many places. Geo-thermal heat pumps can be used to heat and cool. Solar energy is advancing all of the time. Our insulation and other building technologies are impressive.

For automobiles both eco-fuels made from crops and hydrogen, along with the hybrid technologies we see today and straight electric vehicles that are coming, are the way to go.

Clean coal can be clean if used the way you describe, TT. The problem is that's both not very efficient because you have to use natural gas to gasify the coal, and it's quite expensive to capture the carbon dioxide.

Most of what is currently described as clean coal isn't clean at all, however. Particulates are removed in scrubbers, but that's all.

We need to get completely away from burning oil. All of our plastics, many of our fabrics, and a good part of what we eat is either directly derived from oil or depends on oil products for its production.

 

[no1important]

RE: Canada's Energy Futur

I picked other.

I think we can use thermal heating, Windmill, solar and tidal power for our heating and power needs. We have the technology to make those power sources more wide spread but no will to do it.

 

[the caracal kid]

i see so far people are interested in "alternative power". This is great, but so far our understanding of these new power sources in widespread use is quite limited. Studies suggest that windfarms affect global climate and high use of hydrogen power would seriously increase the humidity of the planet. Nuclear is clean and with new advances in nuclear technology, such as fast neutron reactors, i see it as the most viable clean energy to move to.

 

[Reverend Blair]

This is great, but so far our understanding of these new power sources in widespread use is quite limited.

Many of them are already in use.

Studies suggest that windfarms affect global climate

Source?

and high use of hydrogen power would seriously increase the humidity of the planet.

Source?

 

[Canucklehead]

Re: RE: Canada's Energy Future?

i see so far people are interested in "alternative power". This is great, but so far our understanding of these new power sources in widespread use is quite limited. Studies suggest that windfarms affect global climate and high use of hydrogen power would seriously increase the humidity of the planet. Nuclear is clean and with new advances in nuclear technology, such as fast neutron reactors, i see it as the most viable clean energy to move to.

I agree with you there when considering that we can only flood so much of our land to create hydro... we should very thoroughly and carefully consider new hydro locations as well...and make em crown corporations preferably. Nuclear is an option we can't ignore at this point in time and remain even remotely pragmatic about the situation facing us.

I would just hope that our scientists would get on with figuring out how to deradiate the waste and of course that it was a Canadian reactor. (still astounded McGuinty would even consider buying US or French reactors 8O 8O )

 

[Reverend Blair]

I agree with you there when considering that we can only flood so much of our land to create hydro.

The new technology means a smaller footprint even for large dams though, and micro-hydro facilities require no damming at all.

Hydro isn't perfect, but it does create a whack of electricity with little environmental damage, especially with the new technologies. It does need to be combined with other sources and conservation, but we need to do that no matter what we do.

 

[no1important]

RE: Canada's Energy Futur

They have doing doing micro hydro electric projects out here. They use non fish bearing streams to power a neighbourhood or two.

Small and Micro Hydro Energy

Enabling Small and Micro Hydro Development

Wind Energy

 

[the caracal kid]

here you go:

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20041016/fob7.asp
http://www.ucalgary.ca/~keith/WindAndClimateNote.html

i remembered the reports slightly differently. the effect is mainly on local climates.

here is a link for the hdrogen/humidity info but you need a subscription to access it (sorry)
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/302/5649/1329b

 

[Canucklehead]

RE: Canada's Energy Futur

I would have to see what type of footprint we are talking about along with the porximity of location and high level evironmental effect. But... they are definately 'cleaner', it's just overall planning that worries me. I mean... anything from migrating birds that sustain distant ecosystems (thinking North) to the people displaced etc. That takes real work and I somewhat suspect of our government's ability to think that through, or rather, have our scientists look at the big picture objectively.

I just see that Nuclear is now, fairly clean and can be disposed of with less overall cost to a large area when something better does come along. We can store the waste in the mines... but... that's just delaying the inevitable so a way to once and for all deradiate the stuff would be nice to see as a direction of publicly employed scientists. Give them the task and I am sure they'd come up with something.

 

[Canucklehead]

RE: Canada's Energy Futur

Checked out the Micro hydro link from BC Hydro and think those are a great way to sevice smaller areas...natural flow, no fish, no dams. Perfect! I imagine it would be more reliable for rural/remote areas as well with the generator assembly being right there instead of some line 60Km from nowhere being taken out by a tree or some overweight bird. Too bad it's limited by freezing though.

 

[Reverend Blair]

From Science News Link:

Large groups of power-generating windmills could have a small but detectable influence on a region's climate, new analyses suggest.

The findings may stimulate scientists to validate the analysis with real-world tests, says Neil Kelley, a meteorologist at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colo. In general, says Kelley, the simulation agrees with atmospheric data he gathered at a wind farm in California.

Not exactly a large-scale, peer-reviewed study, and it affects local climate (I.e within the wind farm), not global climate.

From the Keith piece:

Will climate change due to wind turbines be noticeable in the face of other climate changes caused by humans?

Our results suggest that on a global scale the answer to this question is no. Unless the use of wind power grows so large that it supplies roughly as much power as the entire current global electric power system, the large-scale climatic effects of wind power will likely be negligible. It is plausible, however, that significant local climate change could occur in areas where wind farms are concentrated even if wind supplies a small fraction of global electricity demand.

What will be the impact of climate changes caused by use of wind-power?

Wind-power may alter local or global climate, but the resulting climate change will not be like global warming caused by carbon dioxide emissions. The climate changes caused by wind power may not be harmful. Indeed, our initial results suggest that the (very small) climate changes due to wind-power may slightly reduce the much larger impacts of climate changes due to global warming. It is possible that wind-power provides a double benefit both by reducing global warming and by creating additional climate changes that slightly reduce the impacts of that warming. Additional research is needed to understand the impact of the climate changes that might arise from wind-power.

Again, local, not global, and certainly not definitive.

The one where I need a subscription doesn't do me any good and I'm not paying to read it.

 

[the caracal kid]

thats the major point i wanted to make. the large scale effects of new techologies are still not definitive. There is a future for them, but we need to move at a proper pace and that is why older clean power such as nuclear is better for now and depending on what future developments happen, perhaps for the long range as well.

I am for wind and hydogen power if and when it proves itself, but not before.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Canada's Energy Futur

Nuclear power isn't exaclty clean though...you have all that waste. You can bury it, but if you're worried about future effects you need to ensure that nobody digs it up for the wrong reasons later. So far we haven't had a stable government in any nation for more than a couple hundred years at a time, so how do you propose guaranteeing that what you bury stays buried?

 

[the caracal kid]

fast neutron reactors may be the solution.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Canada's Energy Futur

When will we know if those are safe and will provide waste-free power? We have working windmills right now.

I'm curious about the hydrogen thing though...how would that create increased humidity? Just from auto emissions? If so, that can be captured and emptied. If the hydrogen is being stripped from water, it's not causing an increase in anything.

 

[the caracal kid]

here is a free source on the topic:
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA378.html

did you read the article on how bats were being killed by one windfarm in the US? This is one of the reasons while i see a need to drive clean renewable energy technologies, we also need to examine the effects of techology prior to implementation (its cheaper that way). here is a link if you have not seen it:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000EB932-D3E2-1FF8-90AE83414B7F0000&sc=I100322

the hydrogen/humidity link is still an area that needs more research. There is nothing conclusive which is why it needs to be researched before goverments push large-scale adoption of the technology.

 

[MMMike]

Re: RE: Canada's Energy Futur

Nuclear power isn't exaclty clean though...you have all that waste. You can bury it, but if you're worried about future effects you need to ensure that nobody digs it up for the wrong reasons later. So far we haven't had a stable government in any nation for more than a couple hundred years at a time, so how do you propose guaranteeing that what you bury stays buried?

I see we've now gone from opposition on a technical basis to opposition based on political/security reasons. All sorts of other means of power generation and industrial processes create toxic, dangerous wastes. Methinks there would be easier ways to get your hands on toxic material for a weapon than somehow breaking into the 'unbreakable' storage containers and bringing it up from thousands of feet below the surface.

How do you propose guarenteeing that the smokestack emissions will not harm us, or change the climate?

 

[Reverend Blair]

did you read the article on how bats were being killed by one windfarm in the US? This is one of the reasons while i see a need to drive clean renewable energy technologies, we also need to examine the effects of techology prior to implementation (its cheaper that way). here is a link if you have not seen it:

I read it. How many of those bats would have been killed by smog and pesticides? What is the nuclear industry's record on animal kills, especially marine life? Did you read any of the several links I put up on bird kill in the related thread?

I have no problem with examining technologies before and during use, but there is a real reluctance by those in the nuclear and oil industries to face the damage that they do while they use any incident with cleaner technology to try to denigrate those technologies.

I see we've now gone from opposition on a technical basis to opposition based on political/security reasons.

It's the same question and it requires a technical, not a political, answer. That makes it a technical question.

All sorts of other means of power generation and industrial processes create toxic, dangerous wastes.

Not as dangerous and toxic as nuclear waste or the production and use of fossil fuels.

Methinks there would be easier ways to get your hands on toxic material for a weapon than somehow breaking into the 'unbreakable' storage containers and bringing it up from thousands of feet below the surface.

Do you? Dirty bombs, depleted uranium etc can be used to exact revenge on generations of people. You can poison water supplies with a very small amount. Do you really think that if (more like when) there is a dangerous political situation that those nuclear materials won't be looked on as a resource and weapon?

How do you propose guarenteeing that the smokestack emissions will not harm us, or change the climate?

I don't. I propose getting rid of the smokestacks.