Creating a sustainable future

As Tan-Nee Ng pointed out last week, the world's oil reserves are running out and we need sustainable, environmentally sensible ways to replace it. I'd like to give brief summary on different ways we can, in my opinion, replace oil.

First it helps to know in what areas we need to find alternatives to oil. Oil is used, among other things, as a lubricant, to make gasoline, and to burn in a boiler to create steam.

As a lubricant, oil has none of the environmental effects that are associated with burning that comes from both gas and power uses. That being said, if the "only" use of oil was as a lubricant there would not be a shortage and the potential lifetime of reserves would extend far into the future.

As far as gasoline goes, the use of oil is primarily in the transportation industry. Technology is rapidly advancing in this area and although still expensive, products are appearing on the market. Hybrid cars, for example, promise to dramatically reduce fuel consumption. Electric cars could also be used to great benefit. The problem here is that they need to be plugged in and receive energy from the grid in order to recharge. If the grid is supplying power via oil-fired stations then electric cars do nothing to solve pollution problems or oil dependency.

The major source of oil use may be considered to be in the power generation industry. So how can this practice be eliminated or reduced?

The US Department of Energy estimated in 1994 that oil had a 45 year "life expectancy." What about other fossil fuels? In the same document coal was estimated to have reserves sufficient enough to last for 244 years! While power generation systems take time to evolve and we may not have time to replace oil capacity in 45 years, 244 certainly seems enough time to refine power generation technology. The problem with coal is that it is a very dirty fuel and contributes to pollution and global warming by emitting SOx and CO2. In order to mitigate the coal pollution problem research is under way in how to burn coal in what is called a combined cycle. These are advanced energy systems that can effectively double the specific electrical output of a standard coal fired power plant. What does that mean? If a combined cycle and regular power plant both produced the same amount of electricity, the pollution admitted to the environment would be cut in half! That is just on a thermodynamic basis, if scrubbers and filters are added to the mix then the potential for pollution mitigation is even greater.

No matter how clean fossil fuel power generation is made there will always be some environmental consequence of generating it. Eventually the economic issues will catch up and alternative methods of electricity generation will need to be implemented . One of the most attractive of these prospects is wind energy. By harnessing a power that is free and doesn't require depletion of a concrete resource, wind power can be an effective compliment to base load power stations. I say "compliment" because there are problems with wind power that make it unlikely to become a replacement for large power stations.

On one hand there is a problem of scale. In order to replace a nuclear facility like Point Lepreau a wind farm consisting of around 300 wind turbines must be constructed! Darlington Nuclear in Ontario produces 3824 MW, the equivalent over 1900 wind turbines. Which one did I call large scale? Greenpeace has ads on TV that state that wind power can supply the world twice over with its power requirement. It is wise to question the assumptions that have been made while making this statement.

Wind is a diffuse source and efficiency of wind turbines drops significantly if not operated under design speed. Considering the environmental effects of the large areas required and the conditions turbines need to operate effectively, wind power is not the be all end all of clean electricity. It has a place, a significant role to play, in areas where land is available and wind conditions are right, but no matter what happens wind power (current technology) as a base source of power is not the answer.

Now the controversial part of this discussion: nuclear power. Fear is ruining what I believe is a great and environmentally friendly way to generate electricity. If one looks at the situation logically, and considers only the facts instead of the misconceptions, one would see that there are both risks and benefits involved in the generation of nuclear power. It would then be up to each individual to weigh the risks versus benefits and decide whether nuclear power is right. I have done so and I am in favour of a zero emission large scale power source!

One of the best sites that "summarizes" all of the most common facts and misconceptions about nuclear power is www.magma.ca/~jalrober/decide.htm . Another comprehensive site is www.nuclearfaq.ca. The Sierra Club of Canada has an anti-nuclear campaign which may be accessed through their website and Nuclear FAQ has links to many anti-nuclear sites. I encourage anyone who has an opinion or wants to have an informed opinion to visit these sites. I am biased in stating that it appears the anti—nuclear sites are based on either straight out misleading statements or quasi-science, but it's up to you to judge for yourself.

We need to start cleaning up the environment. I've listed some ways to do it. Which is the best? Well, none really. One of the essential components of electricity generation is diversity. The best thing we can do, especially as students, is to be informed of the issues and stand up for those that we believe in.