This underscores the not_very_realistic attitude of both Chretien towards the Kyoto accord and the Ontario government towards coal-fired energy plants. Some "environmental critics" in government, ( the like responsible for shutting down the Hearne, a coal fired plant in Toronto, one of North America's most efficient), have stated that they want to abandon coal-thermal generation by a certain date in next decade. Any date in the next three decades is pure hooey. What are they going to replace it with? More leaky expensive nukes, non-existent water, rejected-in-the-past co-generation, or dwindling natural gas? In the past five or so years, drilling in the west or east for gas has been economically constrained by market conditions for capitalization. As well, Ontario gas fields (Haldimand, Lake Erie) are under severe political and environmental constraint. Facts are we need coal and we will need it for some time to come. And it can be cleaned, as it is in India, quite satisfactorily. Fluid bed technology is promising. As well coal can be gasified, and used in fuel cells. The seventies was awash in the suggestions, and processes, including wind generation, but they fell afoul of short term cost-of-development snags and falling energy prices as the opec crises abated.
It would no doubt behoove us to clean our fossil fuel exhaust emanations over time as we can afford it. It is a desirable goal. But not at the cost of becoming even more uncompetitive in world markets or freezing in our own homes. Energy efficiency and conservation, both personal and technological can save so much that it can drive electrical utilities to bankruptcy. We should never forget the main source of reducing emissions is in our hands, on the lightswitch and at the wheel. Turning down thermostats, insulation, dressing more warmly in the home, walling off unused living space, driving less, serious car pooling, use of public transit, more efficient engines, etc ... can save so much that the first 15 years of Kyoto are totally unnecessary.
But industry needs power. A plant needs electricity that it can depend on. Utilities have been managed so badly in Ontario and other provinces in Canada, that it is now cheaper to put in your own medium scale generation than to buy off the province. In India they generate coal power, cleaned, in smallish generators for 3.5 cents US per kilowatt. Can we afford to ignore that coal is the cheapest thermal energy going in capex and throughput, "cleaning the clocks" of nuclear, gas, or diesel, by perhaps 50% or more?
In Ontario, and other non-logical areas, they would allow you to put in a diesel generator to run a plant, but probably knee-jerk-veto coal. I don't know that this is the case, but they way they talk it probably is. The scientific fact is both methods produce the same amount of CO2. And both produce roughly the same amount of SO2. Trace mercury, and selenium are slightly greater for coal. Fly ash, long considered a problem with coal, can be collected by precipitators.
It is high time we got some gestalt scientific thinking into government instead of knee jerk philosophization, to coin a phrase. We don't need the kind of grade-three level thinking and ignorant reaction that got California into trouble.
If the government was really serious about reduced emissions, why don't they fund research into fuel cells, and mandate or provide incentives for lighter vehicles? I would not be surprised to see those Kyoto-supporting politicians driving SUV's to the cottage.
EC<:-} |
