There have been several opinion pieces, occasional editorials and a number of letters being written to editors lately touting the supposed need to rid the world of fossil fuels to power our industries and homes in favour of renewable resource-driven alternatives.
Some of these missives have pointed to the recently opened Boundary Dam Unit 3 clean coal project as one worthy of derision as a failed experiment.
We say, hold on just a minute.
While renewable energy sources do hold some advantages, they also come with a host of negatives that would need to be addressed before we change horses.
In defense of BD3, let us remind the nay sayers who point to the $1.4 billion cost when extolling the virtues of their replacement plans, that there are plus factors.
About half of the BD3 cost was attributed to the replacement of an aging generator and its auxiliary components. The old was replaced with a new unit capable of producing about 120 megawatts of electrical power. That power has a value, just ask those of us who pay SaskPower bills every month. Cost recovery, eventual profit.
The captured gas is being sold for anywhere between $28 and $50 per tonne. Cost recovery and eventual profit.
Boundary Dam employs hundreds of people who recycle their paycheques into local and regional businesses and industries. Cost recovery and business balance.
So to state outright that BD3 is a loser on the economic front is just plain wrong. It needs to be amortized, for sure, as do all projects.
So let us ponder the alternatives.
Windmills.
They cannot be used for base power load production. Maybe someday, but not yet.
Where are the blades and structures being built? Who assembles? How many windmills would it take to generate 800 megawatts of power every hour of every day 365 days a year?
Solar panels.
Again, from where? Who builds, what are the costs and who controls the materials required to build and install them? And again, how many would we need and can we count on them to produce a minimum of 800 megawatts of power 24/7, 365?
How much farmland would have to be taken out of production to accommodate tens of thousands of windmills and sunshine panels?
Geothermal and biomass show more promise due to their capabilities of producing base loads on a cost competitive scale, something that wind and solar haven’t been able to prove yet.
Geothermal doesn’t require a big employee base. Take that as a positive or negative, depending on what side of the employment/economy debate you wish to take.
Biomass could make use of many existing plants using renovation expertise. Fuel costs would be low.
Nuclear, we feel, is still an uncomfortable and very pricey option, generally recommended for those areas where base fuels are not readily available at reasonable cost. Costly to build and four times the cost to shut down with no place to store the leftovers. Fukushima. Need we say more?
But we do have their fuel source here if we want it. We also have gas, coal and oil … those aforementioned non-renewable fuels we’ve learned how to clean and use responsibly.
If we’re really serious about greenhouse gas eliminations, let’s start by reducing airline flights by 40 per cent. It's argued that one transatlantic flight is one of the greatest contributing factors to greenhouse emissions.
So let’s debate and explore, but we need to do it with open minds, not as paid advocates for a particular business interest.
