Dear Gerald,
I read with interest your article in the SPIN. May I offer my two cents of opinion on the subject?
First I must admit I agree with many
points you made. For example, there is no need in 21st century to fly over the
world to demonstrate support for climate change action. I totally agree that
televised video-conference would be not only more efficient but also more
effective. A great example of this approach I witnessed at the Green Buildings
Council Conference in Vancouver last year where Cisco technology (which was one
of the sponsors of the Conference) allowed to connect live audiences from
Portland Oregon, Germany (forgot the city) and Shanghai China with Vancouver
over the gigantic wall screens.
I would leave the discussion of the
level of urgency on the climate change aside for time being – but I hope we
agree that both so called “green” side and its opponents (should we call it
“black” for oil?) have their agenda and political lobbies. Either side is supported and promoted
by various sectors of industry and because of that they have more in common
than different. They all want to build mega-gigantic projects – economy of
scale of course – be it a wind farm, a solar power plant the kind you mention
in your article, a hydroelectric dam nuclear power plant or any other.
Any technology has its hurdles. And
any large-scale projects create large-scale problems. Wind turbines kill birds
and bats (by the way, encasing them in the “housing” will significantly reduce
turbine's efficiency so this is not a good option). Solar plants expropriate large areas of land and
contribute to the grid instability. Hydro dams flood huge areas and disturb
regional ecosystems (Site C comes to mind). Fukushima disaster reminded again
of potential dangers of nuclear meltdown.
But keep being reliant on fossil
fuels – be it oil or natural gas - is not an alternative. “Business as usual” is
an equivalent of stagnation at best, and in a world moving forward with a fast
pace it is a guarantee to be left behind. The statement that fossil fuels are
“wonderfully efficient, abundant throughout the world’s crust and will not go
away” is extremely misleading. If a definition of efficiency is simply "being cheap” in a short run, then I want to know a long-term
cost. "Abundance" is a very relative notion. Distribution of fossil fuels around the planet is very uneven – this is why some parts of it have to bring them
from the other side of the globe spending lots of the same fossil fuel on the
way. “Will not go away” doesn’t even fit common sense. All natural resources are
finite, and in the case of fossil fuels the rate of their extraction exceeds the rate of their natural generation by thousands times - this is the fact which will not go away. Don’t forget oil is used
not only for fuel – all plastics, paints, a lot of cosmetics and number of
other products are derived from oil. While we may change our estimates of when the
so called “oil peak” occurs, new methods of the natural resources extraction
can only accelerate the rate of their depletion. They are also becoming more costly, which eats
into the so called “efficiency” of fossil fuels. Alternative technologies,
particularly solar PV and solar thermal, at the same time are becoming less
expensive and more efficient in terms of their performance.
Cost of one alternative versus another deserves more discussion. Even if one would wave away an indirect cost of a long-term consequences
of a greenhouse effect and global warming - which although would be not wise but it is in the human nature to think what would happen later - he or she can hardly do the same about the health affecting air, ground and water pollution. And what about after-cost
of unavoidable equipment failures and human errors? Shall we recount events
like oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, derailment in Lac-Megantic, an explosion
at pump station in Saskatchewan and barely avoided another disaster with the
Russian cargo ship which lost power near the British Columbia coast?
Risking of falling victim of the
overused (and may be over-politicized) term “sustainability” I need to say few
words about it. Any system – technical, economical, biological or social –
consists of a number of components. In very general terms, sustainability is a
system’s ability to remain in balance over extended period of time without need
for external resources or energy. In other word’s it is a measure of a system’s
stability. It is a lesson of generations of engineers that the more complex system is – i.e. consisting of a larger number of
components – the less stable it is.
One of the most familiar and
relevant examples of a complex system is a power grid, consisting of a large number of energy
producers (typically power plants), even a bigger number of all sorts and sizes
energy consumers (from residential homes to institutions and industry) and an
extremely tight and interconnected energy transmission and distribution network
including under and above ground power lines, substations and many other. In a centralized
grid all components are highly inter-dependent, which on numerous occasions was
demonstrated by big blackouts, recently in Calgary. Residents of Sun Peaks are
very well familiar with the consequences of a drunk driver hitting a power
pole. Several hours in darkness, and often in cold during the winter is not fun
to say the least!
Take another example, from a subject which
became touchy recently – distribution of oil and natural gas over pipelines.
Complex, expensive, subject of environmental concerns and political
disagreements, their short-term benefits are unstable. As with any resources, demand
for Canadian oil is highly dependent on an unpredictable international business
and political environment. Pipeline like the Northern Gateway is an easy target
for terrorists’ attacks and political manipulation. Take example
of Russia using its natural gas supply as a tool for political pressure on Ukraine and not too subtly - on Western Europe. Bet on China is a very risky gamble. For one, Russia
will easily and happily overflow it with much cheaper oil and gas than Canada can
ever afford to offer. US is already resisting Canadian oil – not only they have enough of its
own but they are steadily moving away from oil dependency.
I hear you asking - what is the
alternative? Glad to oblige. I am not a
supporter of government mandated or subsidized technologies, but I strongly
think we need a long-term sustainable national energy strategy based on the System Approach and Real Options methodology.
Decentralized energy system should
be very seriously considered. Continuous progress in solar, particularly solar
thermal technologies in combination with air and ground source active heat
exchange, as well as in in energy storage technologies including fuel cells and phase-change thermal accumulators, makes a self-sufficient
house or a building a real possibility. We are talking about more than “net-zero” building where more
energy produced than consumed at some periods of time but it needs to draw energy from the grid at other times averaging to about zero over the year. We are talking about a building as a self-sufficient system. Passive design, energy conservation measures and new highly thermoresistant materials in combination with
ultra-efficient lights, appliances and electronic equipment significantly lower energy demand. Equipped with on-site renewable energy generation, heat recovery, water recycling. No more blackouts or freezing while waiting for a power to be restored.
Individual houses are connected in an “intelligent network”. A further
evolution of a “smart grid”, it is a sort of an “energy cloud” in which all
nodes are independent from each other but can combine the power when
needed.
The projects like Northern Gateway and
alike take an enormous amount of financial and intellectual resources which
could not be used elsewhere. The more we invested in these the more difficult
it will be to change the course later. It is more than likely that much higher
return on investment in 30 to 50 years of projected lifetime would be achieved
if invested in the research of new technologies. This would have more than
economical and environmental benefits but also decide on which way Canada would
be moving in the future – slide to a backward resource dependent state or move toward
the advanced technological society. And if the government still wants to build something large across the country I have a proposal - high-speed train connecting Canadian West and East Coast. It works for Japan, Taiwan and Korea - why it shouldn't in Canada?
