What are our options?

How to make sense of carbon-free energy alternatives and what the province plans to do about it

by Sharon Oosthoek

Never has it been more important to push for a clean energy agenda. In our fast-growing province – Ontario’s population is predicted to increase by nearly four million residents to reach 16.4 million by 2031 – we are ravenous consumers of electricity. In fact, Ontarians are among the biggest consumers of electricity in the world – we use 60 percent more per capita than neighbouring New York state. Like it or not, we are significant contributors to global warming.

Our demand for electricity grows by 1 percent every year, and the nuclear power plants that supply more than half the energy we use are nearing the end of their productive lives.

At the same time, the governing Liberals are grappling with an election promise to close polluting coal-powered plants that represent one-fifth of the electricity supply mix.

The Ontario Power Authority predicts that unless major changes occur, the demand for energy will outstrip the supply in less than a decade.

In June 2006, the provincial government announced its intention to dedicate $46 billion to averting an energy crisis. Twenty billion dollars will be invested in nuclear power, $20 billion in renewable energy sources and $6 billion will go toward conservation efforts.

Ontario’s target is for 5 percent, or 1,350 megawatts, of all generating capacity to come from renewable sources by year’s end. That represents enough energy to power 325,000 homes. Meanwhile, the government’s conservation strategy calls for reducing electricity demand by 6,300 megawatts by 2025, the equivalent of taking more than one million homes off the energy grid.

Outlined in these pages is a primer for making sense of Ontario’s conservation efforts and the pros and cons of alternative sources of energy. Sustainable energy reduces our dependence on fossil fuels, air pollution and the causes of global warming, all of which is worth keeping in mind as the fall election approaches.

The agenda

To increase energy usage from renewable sources, the Ontario government, with its Renewable Energy Standard Offer Program is offering fixed prices for energy initiatives that produce up to 10 megawatts thereby guaranteeing small producers a set price for the energy produced.

David Suzuki Foundation research and policy analyst José Etcheverry calls this initiative “the most progressive environmental policy Canada has ever implemented” and says standard offer contracts are the reason European countries such as Germany and Spain have had such success in producing electricity from renewable sources.

The government is also introducing net metering so that Ontarians who generate up to 500 kilowatts of power, from a renewable source and mainly for their own use, can send any excess power to the energy grid for a credit toward their electricity costs. The local utility subtracts the value of electricity you supply to the grid from the value of what you take from the grid. What you see on your bill is the difference between those two amounts. If you supply power that is worth more than what you take from the grid, you will receive a credit that can help lower your future energy bills. You still pay the distributor’s fixed monthly customer charge.

The standard offer program has generated 400 proposals for new sources of renewable energy in 2006, up from three in 2005.

That said, conservation remains the cheapest and most efficient option for tackling our energy woes.

The Province plans to use the following measures to reach its conservation goal of reducing demand by 6,300 megawatts by 2025:

• Expanding Toronto Hydro’s 2006 Summer Challenge pilot program. Electricity consumers who signed on to the program got a discount on their electricity bill if they reduced their power consumption by 10 percent or more over the summer. Toronto Hydro estimates more than 150,000 customers will get a rebate equal to 10 percent of their bill. Officials say the electricity savings are the equivalent of taking 80,000 homes off the energy grid for a month.
• Expanding Toronto Hydro’s residential and small business Peaksaver program, a voluntary program that lets utilities remotely turn down a customer’s air conditioner or temporarily turn off a water heater or pool pump when summer electricity demand is at its highest.
• Expanding a refrigerator retirement program launched by Hydro Ottawa that offers free pickup and environmentally friendly disposal of inefficient fridges and freezers. This is an effective conservation strategy only if consumers replace fridges with those meeting Energy Star standards – the most efficient fridges on the market. At press time, Hydro Ottawa said it had removed more than 5,000 fridges and freezers and were continuing to remove an additional 500 a month.
  
• Putting 800,000 smart meters in homes and small businesses by the end of 2007, and in all homes and businesses in Ontario by 2010. Smart meters allow a utility to record when and how much electricity a customer is using. Armed with this information, a utility can set time-of-use pricing to encourage consumers to switch when they use electricity from expensive peak times to cheaper off-peak hours. The initiative, which is designed to get consumers to shift when they use electricity rather than to conserve it, is meant to relieve pressure on the transmission system.
• Starting this year, building new houses according to codes designed to make them 21 percent more energy efficient than ones built last year. And by 2012, new non-residential and large residential buildings will be required to meet standards 25 percent more stringent than those of 2006. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing estimates that over the next eight years, the changes will save enough energy to power 380,000 homes and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to an extent equal to having 250,000 fewer cars on Ontario’s roads. Introducing minimum energy efficiency standards for small and large appliances. But the Province’s standards are not nearly as high as those set by the Energy Star rating system. Environmentalists are calling on the government to make Energy Star the minimum standard for efficiency.

Renewable energy

Renewable energy is derived from wind, solar, geothermal, hydro and biomass projects. With the exception of hydro operations that require flooding, these forms of energy emit little or no air pollution or global warming gases. This is in contrast to non-renewable forms of energy such as nuclear energy, coal and natural gas.

This is a way of heating and cooling buildings, rather than producing electricity. Geothermal energy helps conserve electricity by reducing the amount of it needed for regulating building temperatures. Geothermal energy relies on pipes buried about two metres underground where temperatures average a constant 15 C. In winter, water is warmed underground and pumped up and distributed throughout a building thereby warming it. In summer, the system is reversed: pipes take heat from the house and discharge it into the cooler earth.
Rating: 2 stars

Pros:

• No greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution or hazardous waste, except in the manufacture of the pipes and pumps
• Substantial energy savings. Annual heating costs for an average family home are approximately $400, compared with $1,000 for electric furnace or electric baseboards, $850 for a gas furnace or $1,600 for a conventional oil furnace.
• Constant regulation of building temperature
• The demand on the energy grid is smaller that that of other heating and cooling systems.
  

Cons

• Electricity is needed to run the heat pump, creating potential for pollution, depending on how that electricity is generated.
• Installation expenses. For a 150- to 185-square-metre (1,600 to 2,000-square-feet) home on a large lot, installation would cost about $20,000. (Manitoba Hydro offers homeowners a loan of up to $15,000 to install a geothermal heat pump, which covers up to three-quarters of the cost of installation. This type of incentive is not available in Ontario.) For the same home on a small lot, installation could cost up to $30,000 since the pipes would need to be installed vertically. Depending on the heating/cooling system you replace, it could take seven to 12 years to recoup your investment.

Water has been used to generate electricity in Ontario for years and represents 22 percent of our energy mix. Hydroelectricity is generated from turbines powered by flowing water. Hydro power can be generated using “run of the river” systems whereby the river is not dammed. It can also be generated by damming a river to create a reservoir of water that is released as power is needed.
Rating: 3 stars

Pros

• No greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution or hazardous waste, except in the manufacture of the dams and turbines or in the making of reservoirs (see cons)
  
• A reservoir can be used as a “batter y” that allows water to be stored until it's needed for producing electricity.
  
• Potential for small-scale run-of-the river plants that have a low impact on the environment
  

Cons

• Flooding large areas of land for reservoirs destroys fish and duck habitat at and produces greenhouse gases caused by dying vegetation.
• Transmission lines carve up northern landscapes, contributing to habitat loss and fragmentation of boreal ecosystems.
• Significant increases in methyl mercury concentrations can also occur in flooded areas.

There are two ways to extract energy from the sun. One is to produce electricity using photovoltaic panels that convert light into electricity using silicon. The other is to collect the sun’s heat in water-filled tubes mounted inside flat rooftop panels. The warmed water can then be used to heat indoor space or routed to the hot water tap. This system is called solar thermal. The worldwide solar energy market is growing by more than 25 percent a year.
Rating: 3 stars

Pros

• No greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution or hazardous waste, except in the manufacture of the panels and storage batteries
• No need to extract fuel from the ground, a process that can lead to ground, water and air pollution
• Ideal for remote locations off the energy grid
• Reduces demand on the energy grid
  

Cons

• Works only when the sun is shining, so you still need a backup system. Better forecasting systems and batteries for storing solar energy – now in prototype – would help make solar power a more attractive option.
• Installation costs. To electrically power a house with a photovoltaic system is expensive – between $20,000 and $30,000. To provide air and water heating for a house with a solar thermal system, on the other hand, would cost around $5,500.
• Depending on the heating system you replace, a solar system will pay for itself in energy savings over a period of five to 15 years.

Wind is the fastest growing energy source in the world. At press time, Ontario had 413 megawatts of wind power generation capacity, enough to power 100,000 homes and more than any other jurisdiction in Canada (Alberta has 384 megawatts of wind power generation capacity). Ontario expects to boost that number to 1,300 megawatts by 2008.
Rating: 5 stars

Pros

• No greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution or hazardous waste, except in the manufacture of the turbine and batteries.
• No need to extract fuel from the ground, a process that can lead to ground, water and air pollution and habitat destruction.
• A single turbine is designed to last 20 to 40 years.
• Turbines generate less electricity than large centralized plants such as nuclear reactors. A typical wind turbine provides between one to five megawatt s of power, so s hutting one do w n has a much smaller effect o n the energy grid than shutting down a large energy source like a nuclear reactor. Thus, wind-generated power contributes to greater reliability of the energy system.

Cons

• Potential impact of wind turbines on birds, bats and insects. Birds and bats have been found dead at the base of wind turbines, but no comprehensive studies have been conducted yet to measure the impact of turbines on flying creatures. In a report commissioned by Toronto Hydro and WindShare, Glenn Coady and ornithologist Ross James, former curator of ornithology at the Royal Ontario Museum, wrote: “ Local birds appeared to have adapted easily to the presence of the turbine, and simply avoided it. The rate of mortality is absolutely insignificant when compared to the thousands that are killed each year in Toronto at tall buildings. The study indicates clearly that the wind turbine at the Exhibition Place is not going to have any significant impact on bird populations.” Supporters of wind energy say bird mortality can be avoided by studying flight patterns before deciding where to place turbines.
• Noise. While the Ministry of Energy notes that the ambient noise from passing cars or rustling leaves is often louder than the sound of a wind turbine, the noise from a turbine, nevertheless, is constant.
• Visual impact. Some resident’s groups have fought against turbines, arguing that they mar the landscape.
• Costs. The costs of generating electricity from wind ranges from six to 12 cents per kilowatt hour in areas where there is good wind, usually on lakeshores, such as the Great Lakes and Hudson Bay. On the other hand, according to the Canadian Wind Energy Association, “wind energy has no fuel costs and operating costs are continuing to decrease every year (by 3-5%) partly as a result of greater efficiencies and economies of scale. In contrast, most conventional generation costs are going up.”
• Works only when the wind is blowing. Proponents argue that wind is always blowing somewhere in the province, so increasing the number of turbines makes energy production more predictable. Better wind forecasting and batteries for storing wind energy – now in prototype – would also help attract support for wind power.