bright energy future without coal or nuclear

This week, our dirty coal-fired power plants were back in the news with electoral candidates arguing the ifs and whens of their necessary shutdown. Shutting down coal plants, our guiltiest climate-change-causing beasts, seems like a no-brainer, but heels keep dragging.

We're told that spending $1.3 billion on scrubbers is the answer. Let's be clear: Scrubbers remove some particulates – pollution that causes smog – but they will do nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming. In fact, scrubbers are energy intensive and could lead to more of these emissions, leaving us further unable to meet Kyoto targets.

We're told a nuclear-based energy plan is the answer. The 20-year electricity plan unveiled by the Ontario Power Authority last month calls for half of Ontario's electricity supply to come from refurbished and new nuclear reactors. Because these reactors take many years to construct, coal plants will need to stay online to fill in the gap. It doesn't have to be this way.

The billions earmarked to build and replace an aging fleet of nuclear reactors or to put scrubbers on outdated coal plants would be better invested in new clean renewable technology of the future. Energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies are fast to deploy and, if done right, can eliminate the need for coal or nuclear to keep the lights on.

Unfortunately, Ontario's energy planners have chosen to lowball the potential for green options in favour of a nuclear-centred future. For example, the OPA plan calls for 200 megawatts of solar energy by 2025. Germany installed five times that much in 2006 alone. Ontario could be harnessing three times the amount of wind power the OPA plan calls for, 10 times the amount of solar the OPA plan calls for, and thousands of megawatts from bio-energy sources, cogeneration and waste heat recycling.

The OPA plan also underestimates energy efficiency and conservation. The plan puts an arbitrary cap on energy savings through conservation and energy efficiency at only 60 per cent of the cost-effective potential identified and recommended by the OPA's own studies. This will cost Ontarians millions of dollars in missed opportunities, higher production costs and higher electricity rates. The Pembina Institute and WWF-Canada's "Renewable is Doable" study shows Ontario could be saving nearly double the amount of energy through energy efficiency and conservation than the OPA plan claims.

More than two-thirds of the renewable energy in the OPA plan is installed and planned large hydro. Hydro is an important energy source and should be in the mix – but in addition to maximizing wind and other renewable sources first, not instead of.

Probably of greatest significance, the OPA plan totally ignores the use of power storage technologies for wind, solar and other renewable sources that would allow renewable energy to be Ontario's primary power source, not subordinate to a nuclear plan.

The OPA marginalizes renewable energy, arguing that large, centralized nuclear megaprojects are needed to supply our "base load" needs. But Ontario's base load power can be met through the right technical, regulatory and policy tools. Ontario could learn from California, one of the leaders in North America in integration of renewable energy into the grid. It has set up a task force to look at what's needed in the way of grid management, transmission optimization and regulatory and policy reform to meet California's lofty renewable energy targets.

For Ontario, a decision to invest billions of dollars in nuclear megaprojects or coal scrubbers is a decision not to invest in clean renewable technology. Every dollar sunk into huge transmission systems to support centralized megaprojects is a dollar not invested in "smart grids" that accommodate local production of renewable energy.

A bright energy future without the need for coal or nuclear is doable. With renewable energy, energy efficiency and co-generation, we can cut our greenhouse gas emissions by half of what's called for in the OPA plan. Ontarians could actually be saving money on their electricity bill rather than deepening our nuclear debt with at least another 40 years of expensive and unreliable power, not to mention generating more long-lived, unsolvable radioactive waste.

Wind energy blows into Columbia

COLUMBIA — Recent cool breezes carry sweet relief from the summer heat, but wind has also become a valuable commodity for investors in a new Missouri wind farm that will be dedicated Monday and is already supplying wind power to Columbia.

Bluegrass Ridge wind farm, north of King City in Gentry County, Mo., will formally join the 34 other states that use wind as a supplemental source of energy Monday, according to statistics released by the American Wind Energy Association. The dedication begins at 10 a.m. and will feature remarks by U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill, a picnic, exhibits about wind energy and tours of the wind farm. A representative of the Associated Electric Cooperative will cap the celebration with the ceremonial flipping of a switch on one of the brand new wind turbines.

The turbines

Suzlon S-88 turbines, being erected near King City, are among the largest and most powerful in America: Each one has a generating capacity of 2.1 megawattsEach turbine is nearly 260 feet tallEach turbine has three 140-foot bladesThe rotor diameter of each turbine is 289 feet, nearly the length of a football fieldSource: www.ruralmissouri.org

Bluegrass Ridge is the result of a coordinated effort by Associated Electric; the Wind Capital Group­­­, which is founded by Tom Carnahan, son of the late Gov. Mel Carnahan; and John Deere Wind Energy. Two more wind farms, Conception wind farm and Cow Branch wind farm, are expected to be up and running by the end of the year, Associated Electric spokeswoman Nancy Southworth said.

Bluegrass Ridge began supplying electricity to Columbia on Sept. 6 as part of the city’s effort to incorporate renewable energy into its power supply. Voters approved an ordinance in late 2004, requiring that 2 percent of electricity come from renewable sources by 2008. That’s the first of several benchmarks on the way to an ultimate goal of 15 percent by 2023. Power sources that qualify as renewable are those that naturally replenish themselves, such as solar energy, wind power and bioenergies.

Connie Kacprowicz, a spokeswoman for the Columbia Water and Light Department, said the city is ahead of the pace.

“We’re planning on having 5 percent in 2008,” she said, a percentage the ordinance doesn’t require until 2013. “We feel we’re doing great.”

The arrival of wind energy in Columbia did not come easily. It required somewhat heated negotiation with the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, or MISO — an organization that governs energy flows among its members. The city and MISO clashed over how soon wind power could be provided to Columbia, but the two eventually compromised so that the city can receive wind energy on a “non-firm” basis until February, Kacprowicz said.
Non-firm basically means “non-guaranteed,” Kacprowicz said. “We can schedule and ask for a certain amount of power, and, as long as the system isn’t overwhelmed, we should be able to get it just fine. We don’t see it being a problem between now and February,” when Columbia will be assured of receiving the full amount of wind power it has contracted to buy.

In addition to the new wind power, the city will receive renewable energy from two methane gas projects: one at Ameresco in Jefferson City and another being developed at the Columbia landfill.

The future of wind

Environmental concerns about burning coal have made wind and other renewable energy sources an attractive option to the public, but they weren’t worthwhile for investors until recently. Volatile gas prices, clean air requirements and efficient turbine technology have combined to create incentives that have vaulted the United States into a leading role in wind-energy development.

The use of wind energy in the United States increased nearly threefold from 2001 to 2005, according to a report by the Energy Information Administration. This marked the first year that Missouri had its own wind turbines. This is largely due to natural limitations. Missouri has considerably less wind than other states that produce wind energy, but better technology has finally made wind energy financially viable, especially in northwest Missouri, said Kerry Cordray, a spokesman for the Energy Center at Missouri’s Department of Natural Resources.

Wind’s contribution as an energy source will remain limited for now, because it’s an inconsistent resource. Wind, for example, typically blows the least during the summer, when demand for electricity is greatest.

“It’s important and will remain important, but it will also, for the foreseeable future, remain a supplemental resource,” Cordray said, but he emphasized that the industry expects to grow.
Cost is another major challenge; Southworth estimated that wind power typically costs up to three times as much as coal power to generate. Its costs, however, are comparable to the expense of power produced using natural gas.

Those obstacles have prevented many industrial countries from adding wind power to their energy portfolios. According to a report by the Global Wind Energy Council, 59 percent of today’s wind energy is being produced in Germany, Spain and the United States. Of those three countries, the United States showed the most growth in wind-energy production in 2006.

Despite the gains, non-renewable sources still accounted for 90 percent of America’s total energy capacity as of 2005, the energy council indicates. As the only city in Missouri with a contract to buy wind energy, Columbia is leading the effort to change that.

Tory members praise energy plan

Liberal natural resources critic says proposal excludes Labrador energy requirements

CLIFF WELLS
Transcontinental Media—Corner Brook

Tom Marshall says west coast residents are big winners in the energy plan announced by the province Tuesday.

The finance minister and Tory legislature member for Humber East said the transmission line from the Lower Churchill project to the island portion of the province is good news, as is the Petroleum Exploration Enhancement Program, otherwise known as PEEP, a $5-million pot of money for seismic work on the west coast.

“That money will be provided by the new energy corporation,” Marshall said.

“In turn,” he said, “the energy corporation will obtain equity in those exploration companies, if it’s in the interests of the province to do so.

“The other thing I think is very important for the whole province, of course, is there’s a plan there to take the revenue from the non-renewable resources and using the revenues, which are finite and time-limited, to develop the renewable resources,” Marshall said, noting that the renewable resource economy is going to be powered by “sustainable, green energy sources like hydro and wind.”

Marshall said that allows future generations to benefit from the non-renewable resources, rather than hogging the benefits for the present generation.

He said the clean, renewable power will be a great resource for Newfoundlanders many years from now.

Natural Resources Minister Kathy Dunderdale agrees the PEEP program is a great boost for the province’s west coast, but so is the transmission line that will be built.

“One of the most exciting pieces for the west coast is once the Lower Churchill is sanctioned, we’ll do a transmission link from Labrador to the island part of the province,” Dunderdale said.

“That will travel down the west coast and come east. Depending on what transmission route we use for exporting our surplus power, it might go west as well, so (there are) exciting opportunities for the west coast of the province.

“Bringing electricity from Labrador, but having access to the power to build industry and all the benefits that will spin out of the construction of the transmission line down the west coast and across the province, there’s tremendous opportunities for the west coast,” Dunderdale said.

But Yvonne Jones, Liberal natural resources critic and legislature member for Cartwright-L’Anse au Clair, says the proposed new energy direction for the province appears to have excluded the energy requirements of Labrador and that is less than acceptable.

One of the stated policy actions of the document, “Focusing our Energy,” is to build a transmission line from Labrador to the island portion of the province by 2015.

Jones pointed to a number of large-scale projects in Labrador that would benefit from having a less expensive source of energy.

Several of these, she noted, include the military base at Happy Valley-Goose Bay, which is run by diesel power and the mine at Voisey’s Bay which functions with five diesel generators.

She said other anticipated projects, such as the uranium project in Postville and the two mineral finds in Labrador West, will require a major amount of energy to operate.

“While there are several long-term plans to deal with energy issues on the island, such as replacing the Holyrood generating station with a cleaner energy source through this transmission link, the document does not outline how Labrador will benefit from this investment,” Jones said.

“When the consultations for this plan took place,” she said, “Labradorians made it clear that they wanted to see real benefits, such as cheaper and available sources of power.

“This plan is a disappointment in that there are no such commitments to address this serious consumer, economic and regional development issues".

INDIGENOUS EQUIPMENTS FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY

Most of the commonly used renewable energy system and equipments are being manufactured indigenously.

The Indian companies are also exporting some of the renewable energy system and equipments.

The Government is providing several financial and fiscal incentives to encourage domestic production and make renewable energy available at cheaper rates.

These incentives include capital subsidy on some of the systems, soft loan to manufacturers and users, concessional or nil duty on import of some of the equipments, raw materials and components, excise duty exemption and 80 per cent accelerated depreciation in first year.

The import of various renewable energy equipments is permitted under open general licence (OGL); therefore, no data on import of all renewable energy equipments are maintained by the New and Renewable Energy.

Nuclear Power Generation – Asian Situation

By-Khondkar Abdus Saleque

Increasing concern of adverse impact of global warming due to green house gas emission and rising price of non renewable fossil fuels are making the countries of East and South Asia to lean towards Nuclear power generation. Some countries have no basic energy of their own. They rely exclusively on imported energy. Some have their own energy. But these are not enough to fuel expanding economy.

The economy of countries like China, India is booming. To keep pace with rapid economic growth they need to increase the electricity generation capacity. Nuclear power being environment friendly the countries are endeavoring to set up the nuclear plants. Countries in the East and South Asia are planning and building new power reactors to meet their increasing demands of electricity.

There are over 109 nuclear power reactors in operation, 18 under construction and plans to build about a further 110.China, Japan, South Korea and India are the major players of the nuclear option. The increase in nuclear share will relieve the traditional fossil fuels from rapid depletion and will be a useful step to reduce GHG emission. However, people are apprehensive of the safety of the operation of the plants and disposal of nuclear wastes. There will be some concern of misusing the nuclear technology to produce nuclear bombs by rouge countries. But effective policing of the IAEA and responsible actions of major nuclear countries may keep these under control.

A recent Nuclear Issue Briefing Paper indicates that through to 2010 projected new generation capacity in the region is 38GWe per year. From 2010 to 2020 the new generation capacity increase will be 56 GWe/yr.This is about 36% of the world’s new capacity (current world capacity is about 3500GWe, of which 368 GWe is nuclear). In addition to the active nuclear reactors, under implementation and planned ones there are about 56 research reactors in 14 countries of the region. Only Singapore and New Zealand of the Pacific Rim countries are without any kind of nuclear research.

Let us discuss the situation of different countries as described in the briefing paper.

Japan:

Japan does not have any basic energy resource. It relies absolutely on imported LNG and oil from different countries. So Japanese had to rely a great deal on Nuclear power generation notwithstanding the catastrophic destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki from atom bombs. A few days earlier an earth quake caused some damage to a nuclear plant and led to its closure. About 29 % of Japanese power is generated from nuclear plants.55 units are in operation, 2 are under construction, 11 planned. Japan has 17 research reactors.

The recent reactors are all of third generation type having modern safety systems. Japan is eyeing on doubling its nuclear capacity to 90GWe by 2050 to meet its obligation for limiting GHG under Kyoto protocol. Japan has a high temperature test reactor which has reached 950 Degree Celsius high enough to enable thermo chemical production of hydrogen. Japan plans to use some 20GW of nuclear heat for hydrogen production by 2050. The first commercial plant will be start in 2025.

Republic of Korea (ROK):

About 45% of Korea’s power requirement is met from nuclear plants. Like Japan Korea also do not have any basic energy source. No oil, no gas. It has 20 nuclear reactors in operation, 1 under construction, 7 planned. It also has 2 research reactors. It has a plan to expand to 28 reactors and include advanced reactor design and achieve 60% nuclear power supply 2035. Korea has strong alliance with US to expand its nuclear generation capability. It has a US$ 1 billion plan for R& D and demonstration program to produce commercial hydrogen utilizing nuclear heat by 2020.

India:

India has proceeded to sign an accord with US for expanding its nuclear power generation capability. It has attained nuclear arms production capacity and successfully tested nuclear devices. It has not signed nuclear non proliferation treaty. It has 15 units in operation, 8 under construction, 24 planned and has also 5 research reactors. Nuclear power currently supplies about 4% of its total power requirement. It has achieved independence in its nuclear fuel cycle.

To fuel its rapidly growing economy India needs massive expansion of power generation. But considering the environmental impact can not go for more coal plants. It does not have enough oil and gas of its own. Neither has it assured access to regional or international energy source. So it is looking forward to expand its nuclear generation to comfort its energy security. By 2020 it is targeting an increase to 20GWe by setting up another 24 units. India is pioneer in developing thorium fuel cycle, and has several advanced facilities related to this.

China:

China is has the most expanding economy. Its power demand continues to expand @8% per year. It is trying every option to secure assured growth of power generation. It has mostly coal plants. It is one of the major polluter. But now it has realized the adverse impact and opting for environmental friendly power generation. It has significant reserve of oil and gas. But to fuel its enormous growth it is aggressively accessing regional and international resources. It has got good working relation with Iran. China is setting up energy import projects with Russia. Chinese companies are very active in Africa.

It is also exploring possibilities of gas import from Myanmar. It is also expanding its nuclear power generation. 10 units are already in operation. It has 5 more under construction, 13 planned and 50 proposed. National plan indicates 40GWe by 2020and 240 GWe by 2050.China has also built a small high temperature gas cooled reactor with pebble bed fuel in 2000. A commercial prototype HTR is expected to start by 2010.It is also partnering with ROK to produce hydrogen.

Pakistan:

Pakistan meets about 3% of its power demand through nuclear plants. It started its second plant in 2000 and the third supplied by China is under construction. It has 2 active reactors, 1 under construction, 2 planned. It also has 1 research reactor. It has a plan to expand capacity to 7.5 GWe by 2030.

Taiwan:

Taiwan meets 20% of its electricity demand from nuclear plants. It has 6 reactors in operation, 2 under construction. The plants under construction are third generation advanced plant.

North Korea:

North Korea partially built 2 units but abandoned construction at a certain stage. It was very close to commission one small reactor but concern focused on attempts to develop illicit weapons capability. Subsequently the construction halted.

Countries like Indonesia, Thailand, Philippines, Vietnam and Bangladesh have research reactors and are planning to set up nuclear reactors to produce electricity.

Electricity is the dynamo of economic growth. South and East Asian countries are very thickly populated. To sustain the GDP growth the countries will have to develop the power generation at the same pace. At the same time they have to remain conscious of global warming and GHG emissions. There will be little growth of coal plants. The environmental restrictions imposed on coal plants will make these very expensive. Yet some countries may have little other choice. There may be growth of Natural Gas based plants in some countries.

But that resource is also not very abundant. Natural gas is too valuable to be burnt for power generation. It has other valuable use options. These areas have great hydro potential. But relocation of affected people in thickly populated countries and other environmental issues are restricting growth of Hydro plants. Many countries are aggressively approaching Nuclear power plant option. But people are apprehensive of safety and waste disposal issues.

Third generation Nuclear plants are very safe. It addresses major safety concerns and several contingency measures. If we go for proper technology there are very little worries. The plants have high capital costs but minimum operating expenses. Waste treatment and disposal can also be very safe. If the Nuclear Programs are properly planned and effectively managed by appropriate professionals there are little worries.

Bangladesh like the regional countries has taken up plans to set up nuclear plants. It has offers from ROK. Some people are arising concern about safety. Believe us the modern plants are very safe. If we can have long term contracts with the suppliers for enriched uranium and can plan for proper waste disposal we must proceed aggressively for nuclear generation. We must also ensure that we have very competent and skilled professional group to operate the plants.

About 1000MW Nuclear power in 3-5 years will be great for us. We need power to power our rural economy. The present situation is terrible. We can not let it continue like this. We must explore and exploit all viable options to generate power and make it available for our very hard working and innovative work force.