GOLDSTEIN: Eliminating coal-fired electricity is costly and ineffective, says report

Article content

Replacing coal-fired electricity with renewable energy will cost Canadian taxpayers and hydro-fee taxpayers up to $ 33.7 billion annually, with only minor reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions related to climate change, according to a new Fraser Institute study.

Article content

The report, Canadian climate policy and its implications for power grids by Victoria University economics professor G. Cornelis van Kooten, said that replacing coal-fired electricity with wind and solar power would only reduce Canada’s annual emissions by 7.4%,

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has promised a reduction of 40% -45% compared to Canada’s 2005 emissions by 2030.

The study says that the emissions cuts would be relatively small because coal accounted for just 9.2% of Canada’s electricity generation in 2017 (according to Natural Resources Canada, that number is lower today at 7.4% ).

In 2019, the latest year for which federal data is available, Canada’s electricity sector generated 8.4% of emissions nationwide – 61.1 million tons out of 730 million tons.

Article content

“Despite what advocates claim, renewable energy, including wind and solar, is not free and has only modest benefits for the environment,” van Kooten said.

“Policymakers need to be realistic about the costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Canada, which accounts for less than 2% of emissions worldwide.”

The report says that rising electricity grid operating costs across Canada, between $ 16.8 billion and $ 33.7 billion annually or 1% to 2% of Canada’s annual GDP, would result from having to withhold natural gas. as a backup to intermittent wind and solar power. which cannot provide base load power to the utility grid on demand.

Van Kooten said that his cost estimates are conservative because his study “could not account for scenarios where the scale of intermittency was worse than indicated in our data set … the costs associated with the value of land in other alternative uses, the need for additional transmission lines, the environmental and human health costs, and the life cycle costs of using intermittent renewable energy sources, including costs related to the disposal of hazardous waste from solar panels and turbines wind power ”.

Article content

If nuclear power were used to replace coal-fired electricity, the study found, costs would be cut in half. – $ 8.3 billion to $ 16.7 billion annually – But that is unrealistic given the time it takes to build nuclear plants and public opposition to them.

The study says that to achieve the federal government’s goal of reducing emissions 40% to 45% below 2005 levels by 2030 and net zero emissions by 2050, 30 nuclear power plants would need to be built by 2030. , that is, a 1,000 megawatt plant. capacity will be online every four months from now until 2030.

Alternatively, 28,340 wind turbines would be needed, each with a capacity of 2.5 megawatts, or 1,050 turbines built every four months, plus the costs of updating the transmission infrastructure.

Article content

Van Kooten said he based his calculations on Alberta, which generates 39.8% of its electricity from coal, and Ontario cost by phasing out coal-fired electricity, which generated 25% of its electricity, between 2003 and 2014, replacing it. with a combination of natural energy. gas, nuclear and wind and solar.

According to Natural Resources Canada, Nova Scotia generates 49.9% of its electricity from coal, Saskatchewan 42.9% and New Brunswick 17.2%.

In 2018, the Trudeau government announced plans to phase out traditional coal-fired electricity by 2030.

Canada and the United Kingdom created the “Powering Past Coal Alliance” in 2017, with the aim of getting other countries to phase out the use of coal to generate electricity.