It's Time to Redefine Canada's Energy Future

Nick Blandford, Speakers Bureau Manager, North America
July 21, 2011 | 10 Comments

Energy has been a dynamic topic for many years and will continue to keep the spotlight into the foreseeable future. Renewable energy, oil prices, energy security, climate change as well as a large repertoire of other related topics are constantly flooding our ears. But are the important facts reaching individuals and creating a greater understanding of the energy dilemma that Canadians and the rest of the world are facing? Growing populations and rising standards of living result in rising energy demand -- global electricity demand will double by 2030 and energy demand in general by 2050.

On the global stage, Canada is increasingly seen as a laggard when it comes to making the sustainable changes required to move our country (and the global system as a whole) toward a desirable and healthy future. From a sustainable development perspective, there is a lack of long-term and holistic planning around how to best utilize Canada’s natural resources. An obvious explanation could be the short-term economic gains the country is currently enjoying from exploiting its natural reserves. This attitude may also be the result of design flaws within the political system; it is fundamentally difficult to plan 20 years into the future with different political parties and philosophies exchanging power every handful of years.

The Canadian tar sands are a finite and extensive energy resource that is experiencing everything but procrastination. Although there are regulations in place for the remediation of tar sand lands, very few have ever been certified or restored to their original state. The process of extraction is environmentally frightening, has profound effects on surrounding communities and is increasingly gaining negative international attention as a major contributor to global climate change -- you can see the resulting scars on our planet from space. Some people argue that the need to develop the tar sands is valid as we do live in a time that is heavily dependent on oil; however, the methods used to optimize this finite resource are not sustainable and need to be reformed for us to intelligently move forward. A clear example is the handling of the Alberta Heritage Fund, which was created in 1976 to collect a portion of Alberta’s non-renewable resource revenue for future generations.

While it currently holds $15 billion after 35 years, the Norwegians created a fund in 1991 with an identical purpose (it is actually modeled after the Albertan’s fund) and today, after 20 years, Norway’s Oil Fund holds $390 billion. It is the second largest sovereign wealth fund in the world and much of its success is attributed to the complete transparency of all aspects of its administration. Is there something that we could (and should) be doing differently? I think so.

Similar to other developed countries, Canada is also experiencing an aging electrical infrastructure that makes it difficult to transmit renewable energy that may be generated in remote areas to urban centers where it is consumed. Canada’s vast energy resources may be accredited to its substantial geography, but that very aspect becomes a difficult barrier to surpass when moving toward an intelligent and effective energy society. Innovation, R&D, education and communication are key components to overcoming these hurdles. Equally important is the implementation of existing energy efficiency solutions. The focus on energy management becomes obvious when you learn how much energy is lost when transmitting it from where it is generated to where it is consumed; for every unit of energy conserved at the point of use, three units become available at the point of generation. With a focus on conservation programs and initiatives, Canadians could realize tremendous savings at home while exporting the excess energy to other areas where it is needed.

Canada coincidentally ended up flush with natural wealth making it one of the world’s largest producers and exporters of energy. It’s only a matter of time before the blinders of business as usual come off — hopefully it’s before we squander our wealth faster than kids plough through Halloween candy.

Disclaimer: My comments are my own thoughts and do not represent the thoughts of Schneider Electric.

10 Comments

Gary McCallum
August 6, 2011

'People need to remember that renewables currently do not stand a chance of keeping us warm or in getting back and forth from work. Until then, Canada would best be a supplier of energy to itself and the rest of the world'

Joseph Fourner Read up on Passive house and the Sweedish interpitation called active house. It is a house that produces more energy than it consumes.
Renewables combined with increased efficiency can give us all the power we need. There is no debate here only a need for realization.

Lee Calhoun
August 4, 2011

Dear Think Again,

I couldn't agree more! I believe you were addressing the comment to Joseph and inadvertently addressed it to me.

david adema
August 4, 2011

Dear joseph-fournier-149721,

While we can remediate projects and make them green again, we lose diversity and alter patterns that don't come back.

Having worked in mine remediation and the streams that were affected I can tell you it is incredibly expensive work. In most cases, the profiting party isn't the one who pays but the taxpayer. Generally the cost of any 'cheap' energy comes back to haunt us as taxes and Superfund sites with all types of unforeseen repercussions, cancers and environmental fall-out.

Certainly there are responsible companies out there but they generally are smaller and care about their communities as they are tied to them more intimately. Companies that openly state on their websites that waterfowl landing in their tailings ponds die should know better than to believe this is such a safe project.

Think Deepwater Horizon and Exxon Valdeez which are still impacting the environment. Your beach house probably looks great though there is no wildlife to be seen flourishing.

While a PHD is impressive and for that matter so is a 40 year career as an heavy equipment operator, you focus on one area and can't possibly predict the fallout that can develop in other fields over the long-run.

The most valuable principle learned in any institution should be the Precautionary Principle. Lets not enter into something so large that the impacts won't be known for a very long time but invest in more promising long-term sustainable technologies and save the tar sands for when we actually need them in emergencies (or when the US or China invades us for the rest of our energy, by the way China is a huge investor in the project).

This is what planners in the past always imagined these resources to be strategic for.

-----------------------------------------------

Sorry Lee, didn't notice I addressed to the wrong individual.

Cheers

Joseph Fournier
July 29, 2011

GeraldR - I agree with you, Tar Sands are a problem, in the sense that all major development site cause impact on the environment. The truth of the matter is the environmental impact of the entire oil sands region is similar to that of a city of a million people.
Consider the water usage, irreversible land exploitation, pollution run-off into waterways and general emissions, Cities by far posse the greatest impact on the environment.
One thing that profitable mining operations such as the Oil Sands have over major cities is that they can be reclaimed once they have consumed their resource!
It is amazing that most people have no idea that the Mississipi River Delta is referred to as a Dead Zone - eutriphication caused by human waste water and commercial farming practices has turned an area 10x the size of the Canadian Oil Sands into a toxic soup so oxygen deficient that sulfate turns to H2S! Likewise Lake Winnepeg in Manitoba - it is rapidly movig in the same direction and it is cities and farms that are 100% responsible.
People need to start thinking for themselves rather than being so easily swayed by the likes of James Cameron and Al Gore. We the People are the big polluters - real change begins with changing what we flush down the toilet and put down the drain - it it our nitrogen foot print that matters more than our carbon foot print!

Gerry Wootton
July 22, 2011

Canada's energy policy, if by that we mean the Canadian federal government's energy policy, is a made in Alberta, fossil-fuel only energy policy. Realistically, it's not even an energy policy. It's analogous to a dietary plan composed entirely of ice-cream and chocolate. If one digs around, the Canadian fed's largest clean energy R&D investment has been in 'clean coal' technology. The Ontario government cut down on (Alberta) coal and new (Alberta) gas power generation in favor of green technology. But the would be replacement (Provincial wing of the Alberta based party) would reverse all of that.
Tar sands are a problem. Joseph, I don't think any of those ducks that go for a tar pond swim would support your statements about low impact on the land. Angus, the total flood pond of the James Bay project is about 13,500 km**2 or about 9% of the area to be turned over in tar sands production. While the James Bay project may have its downsides, guess what? Fish still swim in the rivers, ducks land and then (amazingly) take off. Exports of power from James Bay and Labrador are substantial and growing - this is good for Canadian balance of trade and doesn't hurt the national image.

Lee Calhoun
July 22, 2011

'People need to remember that renewables currently do not stand a chance of keeping us warm or in getting back and forth from work.'

Only half that statement is true. I have a home just across the Canadian border in upstate NY that I have retrofitted to be over 90% heated by the sun. The climate here is the same as your side of the border. It only required replacing an oil fired boiler with a geothermal heat pump and some grid tied solar panels. 75% percent of my annual heating comes from summer sunshine heating the earth for my winter usage and 20% comes from the output of the PV panels. 1000 gallons of fuel oil replaced almost totally by sunshine!

Joseph Fournier
July 22, 2011

I used to think much life Mr Shift, but now that I have earned by doctorate in physical science and work in the oil sands industry reclaiming tailings ponds, I have a new found perspective and pride in Canada's Oil Sand industry and it amazing future.
There is no doubt that mining of all kinds has an impact on the land, in this regard Oil Sands is not unique. Where it is unique is in its financial ability to return the land to its former state. It is only now that mining activities has progressed to a state that will allow closure of major portions of these facilities without causing serious complications to operations within the lease limits.
People need to remember that renewables currently do not stand a chance of keeping us warm or in getting back and forth from work. Until then, Canada would best be a supplier of energy to itself and the rest of the world.

Frank Came
July 22, 2011

You are correct that the time is right for a redefinution of Canada's energy future. The recent gathering of energy ministers seeking a national consensus on our energy future was too focussed on increasing fossil fuel production and opening up new markets in the US and Asia. A true National Energy Strategy must engage more stakeholders in the wider society and constituencies that are more in tune with the need to develop alternate energy sources. It must also be based on a dialogue process that goes far beyond a periodic gathering of energy ministers. See the current GLOBE-Net for a fuller commentary on this matter (www.globe-net.com).

Frank

Angus Campbell
July 22, 2011

I think with renewable electricity energy, we need to apply two concepts. First conservation and efficiency must take precident over energy generation. This will reduce the need at the consumer level for new projects. Second we need to steer away from the perceived need to sell power on the grid. Solar and wind would be best served to consumers if they were applied to direct applications rather than dumping them onto the grid in hopes of returning a profit. Small sclae home based applications are where Canada and other counties need to focus on renewables and not grand projects that cost in the bilions and destroy vast tracks of land. On another note, I wonder if the amount of land destroyed with the tar sands is equivilant to the James Bay Hydro or Upper Churchill projects?

Marc Coward
July 21, 2011

Great commentary, Nick. Unfortunately, Canada has a long way to go before it will have any relevance in the global conversation about energy future. At the very least, the powers that be need to explain how it makes sense to burn a relatively clean form of energy (natural gas) to make a dirty form of energy (tar sands oil). Until that happens, I don't expect our country will get serious about the question of finite vs. renewable resources.

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

Nick Blandford

I currently manage Schneider Electric’s Global Blogging Community with the goal of igniting the intelligent energy conversation everywhere energy is consumed on this beautiful planet. Over the past 7 years, I've been involved with the sales,...