TL: The Greenpeace Energy Book SO: Greenpeace International (GP) DT: April 1991 Keywords: atmosphere energy greenpeace solutions gp reports alternatives / Edited by John Bennett, Atmosphere/Energy Campaigner, Greenpeace Canada Compiled by Mike Flood, Mike Harper, David Olivier, Daniel Duffy, Tamara Stark, and Ian Fairlie Produced by Marcia Ryan Please use and reprint this paper in your community For further information, write to: Greenpeace Atmosphere/Energy Campaign 185 Spadina Avenue #600 Toronto, Ontario M5T 2C6 Printed on 100% post-consumer fibre, non de-inked, non rebleached FOREWORD by John Bennett The Greenpeace Atmosphere and Energy Campaign began a decade ago to draw attention to acid rain. We were concerned about the damage being done to our health and our forests. The campaign evolved rapidly exposing the alarming ozone depletion caused by the release of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), along with toxic chemicals from chemical plants and incinerators. It has become clear that the planet is warming up due to the build-up of carbon dioxide and other anthropogenic gases in the atmosphere. In retrospect, the culprit is obvious. For too long the atmosphere has been the depot for our garbage. This state of affairs is unacceptable. If the planet is to retain its ability to sustain life, clean and pure air is vital. The largest source of air pollution results from the production of energy, as in the form of heat for industry, fuel for cars and coal for power plants. Ironically, much of this pollution could be eliminated almost immediately simply through available conservation and efficiency technologies. Furthermore, most of these measures have shown to be profitable improvements to an economy. The federal and provincial governments in Canada have acknowledged the significant impacts on the quality of the air we breathe and the potential destructiveness of the greenhouse effect. Unfortunately, acknowledging the problem has not resulted in action. The Canadian government is participating in the international climate change negotiations without developing any domestic programmes to reduce energy use and carbon dioxide emissions in Canada. The purpose of the government policy is to buy time through negotiations and then perhaps take action once the entire whole has agreed to a protocol. This may sound reasonable but does not take into account Canada's contribution to the problem. Canada is among the highest per capita producers of carbon dioxide in the world. Our largest cities have ground-level ozone at higher than acceptable levels. The well-being of the planet is at stake, we must change our ways. Canada is behind in paving the road to an energy-efficient future and need not be. The Greenpeace energy book has been compiled to point the way to a new future. A future where energy is used carefully, emissions are minimized, and ultimately, fossil fuels are no longer required. INTRODUCTION There is widespread concern in the international community about the high social and environmental costs associated with conventional energy supply, fossil fuels and nuclear power. Canada is also plagued with these costs. Acid from power stations and vehicle emissions has stunted tree growth, damaged forests, and destroyed thriving ecosystems in many provinces. Tens of thousands of rivers and lakes in Canada, particularly in Ontario and Quebec, are threatened, and many of them are already unable to support life. The maple forest is suffering the same scourge in Eastern Quebec. These afflictions are evident elsewhere in North America and resemble patterns of ecological damage that exist worldwide: in China; Eastern Europe; the Soviet Union and elsewhere. Ozone, and oxides of sulphur and nitrogen, which have been identified as the main culprits, have also been blamed for chronic illness and disease in human populations; reduced agricultural productivity; enhanced corrosion in bridges and buildings, and irreparable damage to historic monuments. Added to these costs are the almost daily toll in human life taken by gas explosions, accidents at oil rigs and coal mines, and the damage caused by pollution from tanker spills and chemical discharges. Nuclear power, once purported to be a solution to these kinds of problems, has itself become a major cause for concern. Nuclear power can no longer be argued to be a cheap, clean and safe alternative to dirty fossil fuel. Those countries that have adopted nuclear technology have paid dearly although some, like Canada, try to hide the fact. Only a handful of other nations continue to fly the nuclear kite, notably France and Japan. All of them have spent billions of dollars in developing the technology, and have saddled themselves with serious liabilities in the form of massive debts; accumulated radioactive wastes; a growing number of aging reactors, and the ever-present risk of a major accident. Uranium-producing countries like Canada also must deal with the environmental implications of storing radioactive wastes generated by mining and processing uranium. Canada has already accumulated more than 120 million tonnes of these wastes. For most, the nuclear dream has ended after decades of mishaps and excuses, culminating in 'Three Mile Islands', 'Chernobyls' and many other "one-in-a-million" accidents that "could never happen". The Candu Reactors operated by Ontario Hydro continue to produce power only because billions of dollars are being spent on unplanned retubing and repairs. Recently, the public has become concerned over global warming brought about by the accumulated release of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), low-level ozone (O3) and Nitrous Oxide (N2O). The abundance of these greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has grown and continues to grow beyond the level of natural balance. Because the molecules of these gases are efficient at trapping the infrared radiation that dissipates absorbed solar energy, the Earth's temperature is growing warmer. The eight warmest years of the past century all fell within the 1980s. (This is a status they are likely to lose as the 1990s proceed.) This pattern is entirely consistent with the predictions of the Greenhouse Effect. Wholesale destruction of the rain forests in South America, Africa and Asia, is another contributing factor, since it releases enormous quantities of carbon and ash, and removes an important sink for carbon. Moreover, destruction of the forest canopy reduces cloud cover, which is a first step towards desertification. Many countries already experience problems thought to be associated with changed climatic behaviour and deforestation. The last couple of years have seen storms and floods of unprecedented ferocity, a wave of massive mud slides, and persistent droughts. If these trends continue, the results will affect everyone, regardless of country or economic circumstance. Even hydroelectricity output will be affected as rainfall and water flow patterns change. (This in fact has affected Hydro-Quebec's expected electrical generation in the past few years.) An increase in ambient temperature of only a few degrees would seriously affect agricultural productivity in the traditional food belts. The price of Canadian grains can be expected to surge upwards over the next few years if yields continue to decline; thereby contributing to the difficulty many nations have in financing the feeding of their people. A temperature rise would also cause an elevation in mean sea levels as the oceans expand and land-based ice melts. Low-lying land and coastal cities would be lost, including many of the world's capitals. In Canada, cities like Charlottetown, P.E.I., and Vancouver, B.C., will either be submerged or become somewhat 'Venetian' in appearance. The Changing Political Agenda In 1987, Norway's Prime Minister, Gro Harlem Brundtland, chaired an important international study on the threat to the global environment (World Commission on Environment and Development - WCED). Since that time many of the world's leaders have been falling in line - at least rhetorically. In Canada, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, former Environment Minister Lucien Bouchard and a number of provincial ministers claim to be increasingly concerned about the environment, however their actions often contradict this. Funding further massive mega projects such as oil development (Hibernia), dismantling Canada's national rail service, and proposing commercial logging in Canadian National Parks are only a few of the mean-minded and environmentally-hostile measures our federal leadership has endorsed over the past few years. While our governments endorse such questionable policies however, even they don't deny that there is obviously a heightened need today to find a satisfactory solution to the problems of energy use. While our biospheric conditions are deteriorating, human population is continuing to rise with more and more people coming to expect a better standard of living. Currently, one-quarter of the world's population (1.24 billion people) lives in the rich world and belongs to powerful economic groups, such as the OECD (North America, Western Europe, Japan and Australasia), (Figure 1 - omitted here), and COMECON (the USSR and East EM Europe). These privileged groups use about three-quarters of the world's commercial primary energy, with Canada's per capita energy consumption topping the list. The remaining 4.1 billion people, often described as the 'Third World', rely mainly on traditional fuels such as fuel wood, charcoal, and animal dung. Globally, commercial energy use is running at the equivalent of 20 million tonnes of oil per day. At current rates of consumption, reserves of oil and natural gas could be near exhaustion by 2020 and 2040 respectively - well within the lifetimes of many alive today - and these two fuels currently provide almost 60 percent of commercial primary energy. But this assumes no increase in demand. World energy use is actually rising by around three percent per annum. By 2000 it could increase by a third or more, with the highest rates of growth in the poorer countries with the youngest population - energy consumption in China has doubled in the last 15 years. Similarly, Canada's own reserves of oil and natural gas will last only until 2020 and 2040 respectively at current demand rates and possibly only until 2010 and 2020 if they continue to be developed as resources for export. By 2010, in fact, Canada will likely be a net importer of energy if current trends continue (2020 Vision 1988-2020 Working Paper prepared by E.M.R. - Energy and Fiscal Analysis Division). Government data are controversial. The jargon in which government statistics are typically shrouded makes it difficult to calculate and project with any accuracy. This is an indication in itself of the lack of government confidence in the security of our reserves. The tenuous character of our reserves is an issue that no responsible government should ignore. However, the Canadian federal government continues to ignore this, obscuring the true state of our resources, and therefore cannot be called responsible. Achieving Sustainability Exceptionally high energy use in rich countries like Canada cannot be explained by high standards of living, cold climates, long travel distances, and heavy industry alone. Much of our energy is wasted in draughty and badly insulated buildings, poorly designed appliances, gas-guzzling vehicles, inefficient industrial processes and is hampered by the planned obsolescence of machines and technologies. The nuclear industry has argued that nuclear power can address the dual problems of acid rain and global warming. Indeed, it has manipulated public fears over these two issues as a means of rehabilitating nuclear power. However, several studies have shown that, even with highly optimistic assumptions about costings and rates of deployment, nuclear power could only marginally alleviate these environmental concerns. Only about 30 percent of fossil fuel burned is consumed by our electricity supply industry. The balance is used in transportation, home heating and industry. In these sectors nuclear power is not an economic option. Fossil fuels contribute about two-thirds of the growing atmospheric imbalance of CO2. The remainder of this gas comes largely from the burning of the forests. According to the most recent computer modelling of the global warming problem, such as the January 1990 study released from the University of East Anglia (Norwich, UK) by Professor D. M. Kelly, CO2 is only responsible for about 50 percent of the 'greenhouse' problem, with other gases accounting for the other 50 percent. This means that a switch to nuclear power could (at best) deal with 30 percent of two-thirds of one-half of the global warming problem which is only 10 percent. (30 % x 2/3 x In = 10 %) On top of this relative ineffectiveness, the nuclear option also carries enormous financial, social and environmental costs of its own which quite possibly rival any supposed advantages it contains. None of the problems associated with waste disposal, accident risk, and nuclear weapons proliferation are close to being overcome (Loving et al, 1981; Keepin & Kats, 1988). In fact, over 100 of Britain's top scientists, doctors and engineers recently signed a Greenpeace petition stating that nuclear power was irrelevant to the prevention of global warming. Nuclear energy currently provides about 9 percent of Canada's energy (Energy Canada 1989-90, p 18). In 1989, nuclear power supplied just under 50 percent of Ontario's electricity needs. Ontario has 20 of the 22 reactors in Canada; 16 operating at the Bruce and the Pickering stations, and four under construction at Darling ton. When the Darlington station is completed in 1992, nuclear generation will provide over 60 percent of Ontario's electricity (Ontario Energy Review, 4th Edition - Ontario Ministry of Energy, p 31). Nuclear energy presently provides about 16 percent of the world's electricity, which amounts to two percent of commercial delivered energy. The European Commission recently issued a communication calling on member states to improve the efficiency of energy use by at least 20 percent by 1995. This, however, is only a beginning. Recent studies suggest that most wealthy countries could continue to increase living standards but at the same time use significantly less energy if they concentrate their efforts on using energy more wisely. Some of the more important studies are analysed in Part I below. Part II is concerned with the renewable sources of energy - the sun and the wind; running water; energy in the waves and tides; geothermal heat; and the energy stored in green plants and other organic matter-biomass. It considers progress with the more promising technologies, looks at some of the impediments to further expansion, including environmental factors and summarizes measures that can be taken to overcome them. Part III speculates on the contribution renewables could make in future years, given sufficient encouragement and support. PART I ENERGY EFFICIENCY The first detailed analyses of national energy use, rather than energy supply, came as a direct consequence of the 1973 Arab- lsraeli War, and the quadrupling of oil prices. The panic that followed forced all governments to weigh the implications of their growing dependence on fossil fuels. The members of the OECD were particularly concerned, because they believed their continuing prosperity depended on ready access to cheap energy. Canada's response was to accelerate oil lands exploration and development in such places as the Arctic and Northern Alberta. It soon became obvious that, in most countries, less than half the energy available in fuel burnt was actually providing a useful service. The rest was lost in conversion to delivered forms (such as gasoline, kerosene, propane, and electricity) and in their inefficient use on the roads, or in the home, office, factory or farm. Internationally, numerous scenarios were produced which showed how future energy needs could be met if different priorities were applied. Many concluded that, in most countries, indigenous renewable energy sources could meet a growing proportion of national demand. What's more, they found this could be achieved without in any way curtailing economic growth. No novel or unproven measures were assumed, merely the phased introduction of simple technologies such as: thermal insulation (which is now known at times to have an attendant CFC problem); improved appliance and vehicle efficiencies; heat recovery systems; heat pumps; the combined generation of heat and power; and, in the northern countries, group and district heating. More recently, it has become clear such scenarios offer the greatest promise of reducing global CO2 emissions and acid rain, while at the same time ameliorating other environmental problems, and tackling economic inefficiency. More Efficient Electricity Use The electricity sector was identified as of supreme importance since electricity production accounts for between one-quarter and one-third of primary energy use in industrialized countries. Moreover, at least two-thirds of this energy is wasted during the production and distribution of electricity. In Canada 29 percent of our primary energy is consumed by our electricity supply utilities with much of it lost during production and about eight percent more during distribution (E.M.R. Electrical Power in Canada 1988, p 18). An analysis of how electricity is used in the UK, shows that industrial machinery, domestic appliances, and lighting account for more than half the electricity consumed. The rest is used to provide industrial process heat, cooking, refrigeration, space and water heating. In Canada the patterns are slightly different, indicating that percentage industrial use has dropped from around 60 percent in 1960 to 44 percent in 1988. Commercial use has risen from 12 percent to 22 percent, and residential use from 19 percent to 27 percent. Line losses, or losses during transmission have averaged eight to ten percent each year. In absolute terms, of course, industrial use has advanced roughly 270 percent since energy consumption has increased more than fourfold from 109,304 gigawatt-hours in 1960 to 461,320 gigawatt-hours in 1988. Both commercial and residential use have increased more than fourfold as well, and losses through line transmission in 1988 accounted for 12,000 megawatts more than were employed for all residential uses in 1960 (E.M.R. Electrical Power in Canada 1988). Notwithstanding this, the consumed energy in any of these sectors fortifies many of the frivolous appetites of our consumer society, where the purpose for which energy is consumed is often as inappropriate as the means of energy generation. While much attention has been paid to improving the efficiency of large generating sets, relatively little has been done to ensure that electricity is used sensibly and efficiently. On technological rather than sociological grounds, well-designed modern lights, white goods, refrigerators, stoves and electric motors can reduce electricity use by 50 percent without any diminishment of the service provided. (No analysis has really. been done on the sociological aspects of energy consumption in a society burdened by inappropriate consumption, but the current irony is that facilities to generate energy from waste are considered serious options in Canada. We fail to realize that much of this energy will then be used to produce waste.) (See Ontario Waste Management Corp. for example) Investing in electricity efficiency- 'negawatts' - benefits everyone. It involves less risk and higher financial returns for private investors, and will lead to both dramatic reductions in fossil fuel use and fallacious arguments for nuclear power. Saving one unit of electricity in effect saves three to four units of primary energy, and equivalent amounts of acid rain emissions and nuclear waste. This results in increased security of energy supply, reduced reliance on overseas fuel suppliers, and an improved balance of payments. The current Federal Government has great concern over the level of deficit and national debt. The energy efficiency option could significantly alleviate both problems. Even the utilities themselves benefit: not only can they make more profitable use of capital (by lending it to their customers), reduce uncertainty implicit in corporate planning, and the risks associated with new plant construction - especially with big stations, which have a 15-year lead time. They also reduce the 'peakiness' of demand, enabling the system as a whole to operate more efficiently (Keepin & Kats, 1988). More attention to these benefits by Ontario Hydro and Hydro- Quebec could revolutionize the projected demand for electrical energy in coming decades. British Columbia Hydro has initiated several progressive programmes to induce customers to purchase energy efficient appliances. The domestic refrigeration programme which pays a rebate to the purchaser and a small commission to the sales person has practically eliminated inefficient models from the British Columbia market. BOX 1 Lighting Lighting accounts for nearly 25 percent of all electricity used in North America. Present energy efficient technologies could eliminate three-quarters of this consumption at one-quarter or less the cost of supplying electricity from new power stations. A wide range of compact fluorescent light bulbs are now available, with efficiencies in the range of 40 to 60 lumens per watt - four to five times greater than ordinary incandescent bulbs. They are more expensive, but last five to six times as long. Some (with phosphor coatings) produce light of similar quality to that of incandescents. Vehicles The transport sector uses, typically, around one-quarter of the delivered energy in some industrialized countries. It is almost entirely dependent on oil: only around one percent of the total delivered energy is in the form of electricity. There are major opportunities to reduce the amount of liquid fuel used in this sector, both through technical improvements, and through changing transport patterns, for example, by encouraging more people to switch from private to public transport, and encouraging industry to use rail rather than road to move freight. (The Mulroney consortium has shown less than exemplary concern by slashing Via Rail.) Savings can be made more easily and more quickly in road vehicles than in other modes of transport. There are two complementary approaches. The first involves improving the overall efficiency with which the chemical energy in the fuel is converted into useful motive power. Current engines are highly inefficient in this respect - diesels convert only around 20 percent of the energy potentially available, and gasoline engines, nearer 15 percent- even assuming careful driving. The second involves reducing the power required for a given performance. The techniques include: lighter and more streamlined bodywork; smaller engines with significantly reduced internal friction; continuously variable transmission; and electronic controls on ignition and carburation. The development of advanced composite engines which amalgamate the best features of gasoline and diesel engines also offers considerable economic improvement. Canada has done next to nothing yet in these areas. The average car achieves fuel conversion of around 10 litres per 100 km. The best modern production models achieve around four litres, and some prototypes, around 2.4 litres per 100 Km. There is also tremendous potential to reduce the number of kilometres driven for personal and commercial reason by making basic changes in planning, roads and public transportation policies. Energy-Efficient Scenarios Detailed studies on the potential for energy efficiency have been made in about 15 OECD countries. Most take the form of scenarios which examine what might happen in the future, given explicit changes in energy policy. The traditional approach used by governments has been simply to extrapolate from past trends without any clear idea of what the energy might be used for. Energy efficiency studies, however, require investigating for what purposes energy is used. The first stage involves analysing the hundreds of different ways in which energy is used in a particular 'base year' - unceremoniously known as the 'bottom up' approach to distinguish it from the alternative 'top down' method. Once this is done the scope for improving energy efficiency can be assessed, assuming technologies that are already in commercial use, or at an advanced prototype stage and known to work well. Assumptions can also be made about each technology's economic performance against conventional energy supplies, and how rapidly it might be introduced. From this, a profile of future energy use can be derived, extending up to 50 years ahead. Some scenarios adopt a 'technical fix' approach, and assume levels of material growth similar to those projected by government; others assume more radical changes in living patterns to reflect post-industrial values and the more sparing use of all resources, not just energy. The beauty is that all the assumptions are made explicitly and are therefore open to challenge. The assumptions can be varied to test sensitivity. Despite methodological differences, all the reports show that energy demand could stabilize, or even fall, as material standards rise, and that within 40 to 50 years, renewables could substantially displace fossil fuels. Moreover, they show that nuclear power could be phased out over the next few decades as plants wear out - or over a shorter time scale, if preferred. A summary of the principal studies appears in Box 2. Many of these studies were dismissed by governments as 'beyond the pale' when they were first published. But attitudes have changed, and some now look positively conservative. BOX 2 The most detailed work on energy efficient scenarios has been carried out by researchers in the USA, Canada, Federal Republic of Germany, UK, Sweden and Denmark. Shorter, but still convincing, reports have emerged from Norway, the Netherlands, Italy, Switzerland, France, Japan, and New Zealand. National Studies Canada: In 1981, Brooks showed that Canadian government energy demand projections were excessive, and that zero energy growth was perfectly feasible (1). Later, using detailed province-by- province analysis, Brooks and Robinson showed that Canadian energy demand could actually fall by 10 percent, even on the basis of official economic growth figures of about 2.5 percent per year (2). If modest changes occurred in consumer behaviour, demand could fall 35 percent by 2025, with renewables providing 80 percent. This, of course, will not likely occur if we continue with contemporary energy use/production patterns. A study completed in 1989 by the consultancy firm, DPA Group Inc., demonstrated that Canada could save $100 billion a year through reducing fuel consumption with efficiency technologies (3). USA: The Solar Energy Research Institute showed (in 1981) that, if the USA improved its energy efficiency, primary energy demand could decline by 15 to 20 percent between 1977 and the year 2000, despite economic growth continuing at about two percent per year (4). Oil imports could be eliminated, and renewable energy could ultimately provide 20 to 30 percent of total demand. In a second scenario, Sorensen showed that, with moderate economic and population growth, primary energy demand could decline 50 percent by 2030, and renewables could meet around 80 percent of supply (5). West Germany: The OKO Research Institute in Freiburg published a report on energy efficiency in 1980 (5). To match government forecasts, the authors (Krause et al) assumed economic growth of 2.4 percent per year, resulting in a per capita GDP 3.2 times high a in 2030 than in 1975. They showed that despite this growth, primary energy consumption could still be reduced by 40 percent, and that renewables could supply 45 percent by 2030. UK: In the first major study (7), Leach et al showed that with cautious take-up rates of more energy-efficient technologies, the UK could still have 50 years of steady economic growth without corresponding energy growth. In one scenario, there was a slight increase in consumption; in the other, a decrease. In the second study, Olivier et al considered the long-term potential of energy efficient technologies and renewables assuming a major change in UK energy policy (8). There were four scenarios, two assuming official economic growth rates and two assuming moves towards a 'conserver society'. The second of each pair assumed slower adoption of new technologies. By 2025, the four scenarios featured a drop in primary energy consumption of 30 to 70 percent, with renewables providing 25 to 60 percent of total energy demand. Scandinavia: Sweden's first work on sustainable energy futures (9,10) showed that a move towards a system based on renewables was technically feasible even without more efficient use of energy. Later work (11) showed that by the year 2000, total energy demand could be reduced by 44 percent, cost-effectively, even if the economy grew by 50 percent. In 1980, Sweden decided to phase out nuclear power by 2010. In the late 1980s, the State Power Board began a major study of more efficient electricity use (12). A 1983 report showed that Denmark could maintain or improve its present material standard of living while primary energy consumption fell by about 75 percent between 1980 and 2030. Danish natural gas could provide about 20 percent of demand in 2030, and renewables the remaining 80 percent, rising thereafter. The report circulated widely and led Parliament to abandon nuclear power in 1985. Meyer and Norgard have since reviewed national and regional energy plans produced by grass roots organizations and independent researchers (13). A study of Norway (14) showed that, with slight contributions from other renewables, the vast existing hydroelectric potential could cover most energy needs. Sorensen (15) showed that for Scandinavia as a whole renewables could ultimately meet virtually all energy needs. However, some trade between nations might be useful; e.g., surplus Norwegian hydroelectricity for Swedish or Danish biomass. Other European Countries: Less comprehensive reports have been published for the Netherlands (16), Switzerland (17), France (18) and regions of Italy (19, 20). Another study (by Courrege, 21) found that, despite France being poor in fossil fuels, it seemed notably rich in renewable energy resources, and with greater energy efficiency these could make a major contribution. A third study makes somewhat more radical suggestions (22). There has been little work on energy-efficient futures in Spain, although the renewable resource has been analysed in some detail (23). Japan: A 1980 report on Japan (Tsuchiya, 24) concluded that renewables could play a large part, even if Japan continued with the economic growth rates predicted by the government (24). With modest energy efficiency improvements, primary energy demand could be 30 percent below its 1975 value by the year 2010, and renewables could provide 60 percent. Australasia: A study of New Zealand (Hocking, 25) showed that there was considerable scope for improving the efficiency of energy use and harnessing plentiful indigenous renewable sources. Regional Studies Some regional reports have recently appeared as a complement to the earlier national studies. Recent examples are the low- electricity Europe report, Krause et al's report to the Netherlands government, and Goldemberg et al's report on world energy needs. Europe: Researchers from Denmark, the Netherlands and West Germany, with other collaborators, are examining how Europe's electricity supply system might develop over the next 50 years if national energy policies were to concentrate on more efficient electricity use, and replace some conventional supply by renewables. Their report (26) builds on an earlier study by Caputo (27). The Netherlands government commissioned a report on whether changes to European Community energy policy could prevent the severe climatic change otherwise expected. Krause et al examined energy supply and use in the Netherlands and in the EC's four other largest energy-consuming nations: the FRG; UK; France; and Italy (28). They conclude that, if the world is to avoid climatic change as a result of global warming, fossil fuel consumption may have to be reduced by 80 percent within 40 to 50 years. It would be possible for western Europe to meet this target, even with somewhat higher material living standards. Besides energy efficiency, other priorities are the more mature renewable energy supply technologies and a modest shift from coal and oil to natural gas (which produces less CO2 per unit of energy generated). Investment in nuclear energy turns out to be counterproductive, and does not feature in the strategy. The World Last year, Goldemberg et al produced a massive report on global energy use, entitled "Energy for a Sustainable World" (29). This pioneering study, which took four people several years to complete, was based on OECD and Third World data, and laid special emphasis on energy use in the USA, Sweden, India and Brazil. It argues that world energy use would not have to soar to achieve satisfactory development even in the poorest countries. It could stabilize, and even decline. The report envisaged a steady increase in the contribution from renewable energy sources. References for Box 2 1) BROOKS, D B (1981): 'Zero Energy Growth for Canada', McClelland and Stewart Ltd, Toronto, Canada 2) BROOKS, D B & ROBINSON, J (1982): 'Soft Energy Futures for Canada', Friends of the Earth, for Ministries of Environment and Energy, Mines and Resources, Ottawa, Canada 3) THE DPA GROUP INC. (1989): 'Study on the Reduction of Energy-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions', a study performed under contract with the Ministry of Energy, Ontario, Canada 4) SOLAR ENERGY RESEARCH INSTITUTE (1981): 'A new Prosperity: Building a Sustainable Energy Future', for US Dept. of Energy, Brick House Publishing, Andover, MA, USA 5) SORENSEN, B (1980): 'An American Energy Future', Solar Energy Research Institute, CO, USA 6) KRAUSE, F et al (1980): 'Energiewende: Wachstum und Wohlstand ohne Erdol und Uran', S Fischer Verlag GmbH, Frankfurt(M), FRG 7) LEACH, G et al (1979): 'A Low Energy Strategy for the UK' IIED/Science Reviews 8) OLIVER, D et al (1983): 'Energy-Efficient Futures; Opening the Solar Option', Earth Resources Research, London, UK 9) JOHANSSON, T B & STEEN, P (1977): 'Solar Sweden', Secretariat for Futures Studies, Stockholm 10) JOHANSSON, T B et al (1982): 'Sweden Beyond Oil The Efficient Use of Energy', Environmental Studies Program, Univ. of Lund, Sweden 11) STEEN, P et al (1981): 'Energi - Till Vad oc Hur Mycket', Liberforlag, Stockholm 12) 'The Electricity Project', details from Vattenfall, US/2, 162 87 Vallingby, Sweden 13) MEYER, N I & NORGARD, J S (1987): 'Alternative Energy Plans for Denmark on National and Regional Level', Energy Group, Technical Univ. of Denmark 14) Al lERKVIST, S & JOHANSSON, T B (1980): 'Solar Norway', Universitetsforlaget, Oslo (in Norwegian) 15) SORENSEN, B (1979): 'A Renewable Energy System for Scandinavia', Proc. tat. lnL Conf. on Soft Energy Paths, Rome 16) POTMA, T (1977): 'Energiebeleid met Minderrisiko', Vereniging, Milieudefensie, Tweede Weteringsplantsoen 9, Amsterdam. the Netherlands 17) PETER, R W (1977): 'Ein Nationalen Energisparplan', Gottlieb Duttweilerinstitut, Ruschlicken, Zurich. Switzerland 18) COMMISSION D'ENERGE DE 'LES VERTS' (1986): '4 scenarios energetiques appliques a la France', Conference mondiale alternative sur l'energie, Cannes 19) PAGANI, R et al (1979): 'Reference Energy System for Sardinia', Brookhaven National Lab., Upton, NY, USA 20) MATTEOLI, L et al (1979): 'Sardinia 2010', Instituto di Technologia dell' Ambiente Construito, Facolta di Architettura, viale P A Mattioli 39, Torino, Italy 21) COURREGE, P et al (1978): 'Pro jet Alter', Le Groupe de Bellevue, 85 boulevard de Port Royal, 75031 Paris, France 22) LES AMIS DE LA TERRE (1978): 'Tout solaire', Paris, France 23) PUIG, J & COROMINAS, J (1986): 'Recursos Energetics', Dept. Geografia, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Gener 24) TSUCHIYA, H (1980): 'A Soft Path Plan for Japan', Research Institute for Systems Technology, Tokyo, Japan 25) Published by Friends of the Earth, New Zealand (1977) 26) 'Low-Electricity Europe', forthcoming (1989); contact Bjarne Juul-Kristensen, Physics Lab. in, Technical Univ. of Denmark, 2800 Lyngby, Denmark 27) CAPUTO, R (1980): 'Solar Energy for the Longer Term', UNECE Seminar on New Energy Sources, Geneva, Switzerland 28) Krause, F et al (1989): 'Energy and Climate Change: What Can Western Europe Do?', for Netherlands Ministry of the Environment by Intl. Project for Sustainable Energy Paths, Richmond, CA, USA 29) Goldemberg, J et al (1984): 'Energy for a Sustainable World', AAAS Symposium on World Energy, New York PART II RENEWABLE SOURCES OF ELECTRICITY The Old and the New Technologies that harness natural flows of energy are thousands of years old. The Greeks developed the principles of passive solar architecture 2,500 years ago. Windmills first appear around 1000 BC - the use of the wind to propel ships is older still. Water wheels are thought to have been developed around the time of Christ, and were in widespread use in Europe in the Middle Ages. In Canada, many factories and mills in operation during the nineteenth century were powered by water wheels. Technology was also adapted for harnessing the tides; thousands of tide mills were at one time operating around the coasts of England, France and Spain. Even solar water heaters date back to the end of the last century. This long, often chequered history does create something of an image problem for renewables. Some people may still think of them as crude and primitive. Nothing could be further from the truth. The latest solar collectors have special coatings which enable them to produce high temperatures even when the sun is hidden behind cloud; solar cells (which convert sunlight directly into electricity) are based on advanced semiconductor technology. Small hydroelectric power stations have electronic governors to maintain stable output and operate under remote control, and modern wind turbines make use of the latest composite materials and computer-aided design, and incorporate 'clever' computers to anticipate and respond to changing wind behaviour. When you remember that a nuclear reactor is merely an over-dressed and extremely dangerous water heater, alternative technologies hardly seem primitive. The theoretical potential for renewable energy varies from country to country. Many factors are involved, including climate, latitude, the nature of the resources, and topography. The extent to which these technologies are adopted is influenced by a number of additional factors, such as size and density of population, economic performance of the country and its degree of industrialisation. The existence of large networks for transmitting and distributing electricity facilitates the introduction of smaller intermittent sources like wind energy because variations in output become less important. (Grid-linked wind turbines would be used as fuel-savers.) The cultural acceptability and perceived impact of the technology are also important since they ultimately limit full exploitation of each resource. However, it is very clear that in Canada opportunities exist to make much more widespread use of renewable energy technologies. Renewable energy already makes a major contribution to world supply. Setting aside the enormous direct contribution from the sun in maintaining planetary temperatures, wood provides the bulk of energy used by over half the world's population, and over 90 percent of the energy used in very poor countries, like Nepal and Tanzania. In Canada, wood supplies seven percent of energy needs. Water power provides one-quarter of the world's electricity (50 percent more than nuclear power), and more than two-thirds of that used in over 30 countries (Flood, 1986). In Canada, water power already provides for 60 percent of electrical generation capacity, or nine percent of Canada's total energy needs. Given the many inefficiencies present in the large scale hydro developments in Canada, this impressive contribution to Canada's energy needs could be upgraded through more efficient use of water sources that are already being tapped, as well as through the sensitive installation of mini- and micro-hydro facilities in many other areas. Recently there has been a series of developments totalling 1,700 megawatts in the Moose River Basin of James Bay. These, unfortunately, have ignored the traditional activities of the native people in the region "who may be affected by alteration of the environment and by changes to employment patterns as a result of the project. Mercury contamination and effects on their fisheries and dietary patterns have already occurred" (IPPSO FACTO - special release Jan. 1990 pp 8&9). This, however, is a small fraction of what renewables could provide given a determined programme of support. The following section discusses the state of these technologies and their potential within Canada and a number of European nations. It is evident that the technologies have much wider potential applications. The section concludes with an argument for a more extensive commitment to alternative technologies in Canada. Box 3 gives an outline of two European national programmes for comparison with Canada's. BOX 3 RENEWABLE ENERGY IN SPAIN, PORTUGAL AND CANADA Annually, Spain and Portugal use energy equivalent to 79 and 12 million tonnes of oil (mtoe) respectively. The bulk of this energy comes from oil (almost 60 percent in 1985), coal supplies a fifth, and the rest comes from hydroelectric and nuclear, with a small contribution from gas. Both countries are making efforts to move away from oil, and have recently started modest research programmes, supported in part by EC funding. They have significant renewable energy resources - biomass, hydro, direct solar, geothermal, wind and wave. Spain: The Spanish government established an Institute for Energy Diversification and Savings (IDEA) in early 1984, within the Ministry of Industry and Energy. One of the principal aims of this institute is to promote renewable energy sources. To date, its main focus has been on the use of agricultural and forestry residues, and municipal solid waste, 90 percent of which currently goes to landfill, but it also has significant programmes in mini-hydro (under five megawatts), solar, and wind. By 1988 these resources were supplying energy equivalent to almost 0.4 mtoe, including almost 300,000 tonnes of oil equivalent (toe) from biomass, and 90,000 toe from mini-hydro, with geothermal, solar and wind providing about 10,000 toe. IDEA's target for 1992 is 2.7 mtoe, about five percent of current delivered energy or around 15 percent if large hydro is included. This includes the construction of 35 to 50 megawatts of wind- Spain already has six small wind farms, including one on Tenerife, and plans to build more. Overall, however, spending on renewables research and development has been relatively small compared with that of conventional energy systems. In 1986 it accounted for about $20 million, equivalent to just $0.5 per person. Portugal: Portugal gets almost 30 percent of its primary energy from renewables such as hydroelectricity - and possibly 40 percent if resources such as wood and forest residues are included. Recent studies suggest that the country has significant biomass potential - forest residues alone could provide the energy equivalent to 13 million barrels of oil (almost two mtoe). Accordingly, the Government has set up a centre for biomass studies to further research this area. However, apart from hydro, relatively little has been done to exploit the country's other renewable energy resources. Canada: Canada has not yet solved the problem of how to develop a renewable energy economy. This could be largely attributed to the $7 million annual investment in research and development by the federal government - somewhat less than the cost overrun on any piece of military hardware. Despite this, there are several operating renewable energy systems in operation largely in remote applications. Hydroelectricity Hydroelectricity supplies 13 percent of Europe's electricity, and a large proportion of the electricity used in several countries. Norway gets 99 percent of its electrical power from water, Austria, 73 percent, and Switzerland, 59 percent. Canadian hydro supplies 60 percent of its electrical needs. Hydroelectricity ranks among the cheapest power produced. Plants tend to be expensive to build but, once installed, have low running costs and exceptionally long operating lives. Some are almost a century old. The bulk of the electricity comes from large, 'high head' schemes of 20 to 500 megawatts capacity. Water is retained behind a dam, and then discharged through turbines at a lower level to generate the power. In the developed countries, most of the best sites for this kind of scheme have already been used up, and there is considerable opposition to building further sites because it could involve flooding valleys, submerging farmland, and possibly settlements, and destroying wildlife habitat. Large scale hydroelectric developments are associated with major environmental impacts on habitat, wildlife and often violate native rights. For these reasons they should be avoided. This is particularly true in Canada where most remaining development sites are unsuitable for environmental, political and energy reasons. The James Bay II project in Northern Quebec is a clear example of poor energy policy that will result in environmental damage and the violation of native rights. These impacts can be minimized by utilizing smaller hydrosystems, which can use 'run- of-river' turbines, not requiring dams and the resulting flooded areas. Worldwide, however, there is considerable potential for building these much smaller sites (less than 20 megawatts), which operate as 'run-of-river' systems on heads of water of only a few metres. Currently, small hydro plants contribute only about six billion kilowatt-hours, out of a total of 182 produced by hydro in Europe in 1987 (Bazaga, 1988). The supply may not be firm - there are often seasonal variations in river flow - but maximum output is available in the winter when the demand is highest. Canada's waterways encourage this approach, and expansion of current research and development in this area is necessary. The technology of mini- and micro-hydro has come a long way in recent years. Developments have included the introduction of electronic devices for regulation, and remote monitoring and control. The costs have come down dramatically, although they tend to be high compared with coal and oil, based on present utility costing methods. However, in some countries, governments give financial assistance to private producers, especially for off-grid applications. Worldwide, hydro's capacity could be increased several fold. The theoretical potential is six times current capacity, around 2,200 gigawatts. To achieve this in full would involve building a large number of major hydroelectric projects, some of which would undoubtedly have unacceptable social and environmental consequences. However, a significant part of the potential could be created using small scale hydro technology with a lower environmental impact. In Canada there are unquestionably many benefits that could be derived through more extensive commitment to mini- and micro-hydro generating facilities. The immediate reduction in emissions alone is significant. New small hydro systems could generate as much as another 5,000 megawatts. Other 'lowhead' systems, requiring only a few metres of head to operate efficiently, could generate a further 20,000 megawatts. A six megawatt experimental system is currently operating without problems on the Welland Canal. Biomass Biomass is in many ways the most complex renewable energy option, because of the variety of possible feed stocks, the multitude of conversion processes, and the range of outputs. It covers agricultural and industrial residues, process waste, sewage, animal and municipal waste, as well as trees and other energy crops. These can be used to provide heat and/or electricity, or be converted into solid, liquid or gaseous fuels. Worldwide, the biomass resource is enormous, estimated to be around 170 billion tonnes of dry material per year (IEA, 1987). Canada's share of this is 26 billion tonnes. The two main methods of converting raw feedstock into useful energy are direct combustion and anaerobic digestion. Biomass is burnt in all Third World countries to provide heat for cooking and space heating, and for industrial applications (including smelting), as well as in the generation of electricity for industrial use or grid distribution. Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) and wood are the most commonly used biofuels in Europe. It is becoming increasingly obvious, however, that even the most efficient facilities that burn MSW for energy produce hazardous toxics that contaminate the environment both in the emissions themselves and in the fly ash. Moreover, much more energy is wasted in the production of the disposable commodities and packaging than is recovered by burning them. If so much energy were not being 'wasted' in the production of 'waste' there would be no need at all for this dangerous energy recovery method. Straw burning and the use of wood in power stations also have potential. Straw is already widely used in Denmark - 15,000 farms have straw burners, and no fewer than 15 district heating schemes use straw in whole or in part. Finland has recently initiated a programme which combines reforestation with the combustion of the wood. A wide variety of municipal, industrial and agricultural waste may be treated anaerobically, that is, without oxygen. This not only reduces odour and produces a less noxious effluent, but also generates methane which can be used for direct heating or hot water production. The technology of anaerobic digestion is well established and has been used for many years in the treatment of sewage. It is likely to find widespread application in treatment of certain food industry wastes, and on intensive livestock farms which produce particularly noxious wastes. Countries like Holland already have a serious problem with pollution from pig farming. The use of gas from landfill sites is also growing more popular. There are now over 150 schemes in operation worldwide, many in Europe. Projects of this type also exist in Canada with one such facility north of Toronto, another in British Columbia and more at the feasibility stage. Other possible biomass treatments include fermentation to produce fuel alcohol for use in vehicles, and pyrolysis and gasification, which convert waste into liquid and gaseous fuel. These last two options involve heating in the absence of air, and tend to be rather expensive at present. There exists considerable potential in most countries for growing more wood and other energy crops for fuel. Important work on agro-forestry and multi-purpose crops is also underway, especially in the Third World. This is aimed at providing higher yields of both food and fuel on a sustainable basis. Some countries already produce large quantities of fuel alcohol from sugar and starch crops. In the United States, for example, it is made from surplus corn. Fuel alcohol is then blended with gasoline to produce lead-free 'gasohol'. Brazil has an even bigger programme, producing alcohol from sugar cane - two million vehicles run on neat alcohol, and eight million on gasohol. Several countries are also experimenting with using vegetable oils as a diesel substitute. However, until recently, low oil prices have prevented alternative fuels from competing. The Persian Gulf Crisis is a clear indication that the development of renewable indigenous liquid fuel production is of primary importance to the national security of the United States, Europe and Japan. Wind Energy The wind is one of the most attractive renewable energy resources, despite its intermittent and variable nature. It is widely used for water pumping, especially in North America and Australia, where there are thought to be in excess of one million wind pumps. But in recent years, most attention has been paid to the prospect of using the wind to generate electricity, both for grid supply and remote operation. The development has been breathtaking: in just seven years, more than 20,000 wind turbine generators (WTG) have been erected worldwide, with an installed capacity of around 1,500 megawatts. Most are in three giant wind farms in California, but there are more than 2,500 in Europe, mostly in Denmark. For grid supply, the optimum size for machines appears to be in the 200 to 700 kilowatt range (with rotor diameters of 30 to 40 m). Much larger turbines have been built (up to four megawatts), but these are still some way from commercial operation. Most WTGs have horizontal shafts, and must be turned to face the wind. The alternative arrangement, with a vertical rotor axis, has several advantages but is perhaps less well developed. The gearbox and generator can be located at ground level, for ease of access, and there is no need for complicated yawing equipment. In quantity production, medium-sized machines can generate electricity competitively with new base-load power plants. And prices are coming down as experience is gained. Moreover, operating performance and reliability have improved dramatically since the mid-70s, when many inexperienced producers entered the market (in response to lucrative grants and tax-concessions), and quality control left much to be desired. Today's machines demonstrate high reliability and performance, with machine availabilities of over 95 percent. Studies commissioned by the European Commission show that most member states have very significant wind resources, with the largest potential in and around the British Isles, and the countries lying along the Channel coast. Northwestern parts of the Iberian Peninsula, and many of the Greek Islands are also particularly favoured. (Details can be found in the Wind Atlas, published recently by the Commission - see also SELZER, 1986.) Local topographical features can cause considerable variability in the mean energy over short distances, especially in areas of coastal, hilly or mountainous terrain. Moreover, as global warming proceeds, wind velocities are expected to intensify worldwide. For maximum return, wind turbines need to be located on exposed windy sites, and can present a significant visual intrusion, especially when constructed in large clusters. WTGs also generate noise, and can cause flicker in TV reception, and disruption to radio transmission, although the disturbance is very local in nature and can easily be rectified. It is generally adequate to leave a zone of 200 to 300 metres around machines. (This also reduces the risk of injury should a rotor over-speed and disintegrate). Experience in Denmark suggests that there is least opposition to WTGs where local people are involved in the project and stand to benefit financially. Siting problems can of course be avoided altogether by locating machines far away from habitation, in shallow offshore water, and this is now being actively investigated. Wind systems in Canada currently provide about a seven megawatt generating capacity, 50 percent of which is accounted for by the Vertical Axis Wind Turbine in Cap Chast, Quebec. Wind systems have huge potential in Canada - as much as 25 percent of the installed electrical capacity. This potential has been limited by the relative high cost of such systems and the low degree of government support. Further research and development should do much to remove these limitations. Geothermal Energy Italy was the first country to produce electricity from natural steam. The Laderello fields were opened just after the turn of the century. Today, over 20 countries produce electricity from geothermal heat. Installed capacity is over 3,500 megawatts, and may reach 8,000 by 1990. France, Hungary, the USSR and other countries are also using hot water from underground aquifers to heat buildings via district heating. There are more than 60 schemes in France alone; the largest supplies heat to almost 10,000 dwellings. About one percent of California's electrical production comes from this energy source. Work in the UK and USA has shown that it is possible to extract heat from dry rock using a hydraulic fracturing technique, and forcing the resulting water through the cracked rock. This has been achieved at depths of two to three kilometres. If this can be repeated at six to seven kilometres, where temperatures can exceed 200 degrees C, it would be possible to generate enormous quantities of electricity. However, there are still some difficult technical problems to be resolved before a full-sized prototype is attempted. Harnessing geothermal heat is not without environmental effects, although there is considerable variation between sites. Commercial schemes can produce a wide range of airborne and liquid wastes, including dissolved salts, mercury and arsenic, and noxious gases, notably hydrogen sulphide, and sometimes radon. Large-scale systems may also induce minor ground movement as a result of rock cooling. None of these effects present unacceptable problems in well-managed systems. However, the potential hazards associated with this source necessitates a cautionary estimation of its value when cleaner energy generating sources are available. The potential for geothermal energy in Canada is vast. British Columbia alone could generate an estimated 1,000 megawatts of electricity. A balance needs to be established between its potential as a renewable energy source and its environmental risks, but overall, potential geothermal energy production should be aggressively investigated. Solar Energy Sunlight can be used directly to provide space heating in buildings, and/or hot water; it can also be converted into electricity. The three principal approaches are summarized briefly below. Passive solar architecture maximizes use of natural lighting, and uses the building's form and fabric to capture, store and distribute solar heat. Sunspaces and conservatories are also employed. There have been many developments in this area, most notably new glazing materials and transparent 'heat mirrors' which cut heat loss. In hot countries, similar techniques can provide cooling, including the use of high thermal mass materials, light colours and reflective surfaces, and configurations that encourage natural draught. Active solar systems use pumps or fans to carry heat from a collection system to where it is required for space and water heating, or crop drying. Flat-plate solar collectors are the most common; there is an estimated four million in operation around the world. A number of advanced collector systems produce high temperatures (less than 100 deg C), either by enclosing the collector in an evacuated glass tube, or focusing light with sun-tracking mirrors. The latter technique is used successfully in California where several small privately-financed solar power stations are now operating. In Canada there are about 12,000 solar hot water systems in operation. Solar cells were originally developed for use in satellites; today they are used in large arrays for grid electricity and in smaller installations to power communication stations, irrigation schemes, cold stores, water pumps, navigation aids, and to light dozens of rural villages around the world. They are also used in pocket calculators and toys. The world market is around 20 megawatts (peak) a year and is growing rapidly. Photovoltaic devices may seem expensive using conventional economic costing methods. However, when 'externalities' associated with conventional means of energy supply are considered, photovoltaic technologies emerge as extremely cost- effective for large-scale operations. They are already highly competitive in remote operation. In Canada, for example, the Canadian coast guard has converted more than 2,000 off-shore bouys to photovoltaics at an enormous savings in man hours, replacement costs and safety. Moreover production costs are coming down, especially with the coming of thin film amorphous silicon devices. While a somewhat complicated technology, it is often compared to computer technology in that it is simple to use. Many people feel that this technology will also see the rapid price decreases that we have seen in computer technology. This, 'sunlight to electricity with no moving parts' technology may well be the preferred energy of the future. Ocean Energy Tidal energy is used for power generation at only a handful of sites. The biggest is at La Rance, in Brittany, France; it has been operating since 1966, and generates up to 240 megawatts. In Canada, there has been a 20 megawatts tidal station operating at Annapolis, Nova Scotia since 1984. The technology is well understood. Unfortunately, good tidal sites, with a large tidal range, are relatively few. Studies are at an advanced stage in Britain, where two estuaries are currently being investigated (the Severn and Mersey - see DEn, 1988 for details). There is considerable uncertainty and concern over the possible effect that large schemes could have on the environment, and particularly wildlife. The tides off the Bay of Fundy are the highest in the world and it is generally regarded as one of the best tidal power sites in the world. Up to 10,000 megawatts of emission-free electricity capacity could be obtained by building several sites on that bay. The Nova Scotia station has operated very well without significant problems. However, a large tidal system could have significant local effects on fish mortality, bird migration and nesting. Further, new sedimentation movements created by a tidal station may have some detrimental effects which are not currently, fully understood. Smaller schemes are likely to have lower environmental impact, but are considerably more expensive to develop. Wave energy is the least developed area of renewable energy, despite its obvious potential in countries like France, Ireland, Norway, Portugal, and Scotland. Much of the early work was carried out in the UK, but expenditure was drastically cut back in 1982. (A small shore-line device is being built on the Isle of Islay in Scotland.) The Norwegians are currently in the lead: they have one operating prototype (a second was recently destroyed in a storm), and have since announced an export order to build four devices on the Pacific island of Tonga. Two publications describe developments in the field, including some exciting new ideas (Lewis, 1985; Evans,1988). Canada at present has no wave energy programme. Conclusion All in all, much remains to be done with renewable energy in Canada. It is conventionally assumed by 'status quo' theoreticians that they are not cost-effective at today's energy prices. This of course raises the question whether today's energy prices are realistic or fair. Do they incorporate, for example, the environmental costs of energy extraction, refinement, transportation, production and use? If these costs are factored in, renewables suddenly look much more economically feasible. Further, the limits for renewables are not based on the resource - they are, or are nearly, limitless. The limit is only the technology itself how good can we make it? In Canada, renewables can be our insurance policy for the future. If environmental fears are genuine, as it seems increasingly evident they are, we need to pursue emission free, clean energy paths. Resource limitation also drives us in this direction. Lastly, it is important that Canada begin to take a leadership role in the development of appropriate energy technologies not only for use in this country but also in assisting the development in the Third World. If underdeveloped nations adopt conventional forms of energy it will greatly intensify environmental problems. Some studies indicate that CO2 from the Third World could amount to 75 percent of the global total by 2025. Currently it is 25 percent. Continued reliance on non-renewable fossil fuels leaves the world vulnerable to swings in regional political developments. Turning to indigenous renewable resources could contribute to the maintenance of world peace. PART III THE WAY FORWARD Many non-technical barriers block the path towards a more equitable, sustainable, and environmentally benign energy policy. Numerous studies have spelt out what needs to be done, some in great detail. Still, with growing awareness about the environmental crisis, only a handful of countries have begun to question how the policies they have pursued may be contributing to the problem. Denmark and Sweden have made the most positive responses so far. Canada, discouragingly, has not only been slow but in many respects is actually going against the grain. Alarmed by visible indicators of a deep-seated environmental crisis, attitudes have gradually changed putting governments under increasing pressure from electorates. Ubiquitous pollution, tree die-back, and damage to wildlife are some of the more obvious signs. The message, driven by pressure groups such as Greenpeace, is at last getting through to politicians who exhibit no small concern over the growth of green politics. Traditional assumptions are threatened by the new environmental awareness - witness the rise of Die Grunen (the Green party) in Germany. Perhaps the first tangible effect of this new environmental awareness has been the quick response that politicians have made to reports of a hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic. Action is being taken to limit the production of CFCs - the main culprit, and a major contributor to global warming. There is a scientific consensus that climatic dislocation and global warming currently underway are strongly related to many human activities and contaminants associated with the generation and use of energy. Present international negotiations on climate change may well result in fundamental changes in energy policies. It is easy to identify why there has been little action so far. Governments become wedded to particular policies and find it hard to accept that these may be fundamentally wrong, when so much of the national resource has been committed to them (e.g., the nuclear trap). They may also worry that genuine improvements in energy efficiency could precipitate serious economic difficulties. This need not be the case, as many energy scenarios have shown. There was no growth in US energy use between 1973 and 1986, nevertheless, the economy grew by 30 percent (see Goldemberg et al,1987). Governments could certainly do more, but they are not the only players in the game. In a pluralist society, responsibility is shared between many groups. The energy industries contribute to the problem by striving always to increase their market share through advertising and sales drives. This does not encourage the most efficient use of their product. And consumers are also a part of the problem, because they respond too easily to market forces, either through ignorance or lack of concern. When energy can be purchased relatively cheaply, there is little incentive to use it wisely. Further, the economic impact of present energy policies is not included in the pricing structure, yet we know there is significant costs in terms of public health, agriculture, forestry, and building maintenance. In the future, we are facing increasing costs responding to climate changes. Overcoming the Obstacles The mere allocation of blame does nothing to solve the problem (especially if it is allocated in timid whispers). If progress is to be made, it requires a fundamental change in political thinking and a major reorganisation of our energy supply matrix. It also means some cultural changes for all of us. New institutions and watchdog organisations are required, charged with ensuring that a nation's resources are used economically and efficiently. Energy prices and tariffs should be set so they discourage people from wasting energy. Attitudes have to change too, and our vision of the world and our relationship to it have to be dramatically altered. The Canadian government needs to give much higher priority to managing energy efficiently. More money is required, not just for research and development in energy efficiency and renewables, but for the expansion of public relations. Sufficient funds should be made available to ensure that these technologies are deployed across Canada. In contrast, over the last six years, the Federal Government has slashed the funding of research and development by 97 percent (Friends of The Earth). This must stop. Current government expenditure in Canada is dangerously short- sighted. The track record is worse than most Western industrial nations (see Box 4), especially when compared with the expenditure on conventional energy systems. Figures produced by the International Energy Agency (IEA, 1987) show that research & development expenditure on renewable energy within the OECD rose steadily up until 1980, when it reached a peak of around $1,200 million per year; the figures cover expenditure in 21 of the OECD's 24 member states. Since 1980, expenditure has fallen, reaching around $500 million in 1985. That year, two-thirds of expenditure went on solar photoelectric (30 percent), wind (18.5 percent), and biomass (18 percent), (Figure 2). Historically, expenditure by the United States Government has accounted for well over half of the total. Switzerland and Sweden had the highest per capita expenditure in 1986; Spain and Great Britain, the lowest. Canada allocated $20 million a year to the vital area of renewable energy and energy efficiency - $7 million dollars to research and development on renewables as noted above. New technologies face serious opposition from existing energy industries which can make life very difficult by undercutting prices, or offering ridiculously small buy-back tariffs for locally-generated electricity. These handicaps are especially unfair in that the existing energy industries are generally heavily subsidized by the taxpayer and, in the case of utilities like Ontario Hydro, already owe a massive debt. And there may be other problems; for example, high local taxes, or legal uncertainty over the ownership of a resource - such as geothermal heat and wind energy. There is much to be said for setting specific targets, both for improving energy efficiency and deploying the renewables, and ensuring that these are met, by offering financial or other inducements when appropriate. In these circumstances, a strong case can be made for positive discrimination through fiscal and other measures. A number of schemes have been highly successful, especially where they have combined different financial and non- financial measures. Some have failed, but for reasons that are now well understood. Box 5 briefly describes some of the schemes that have operated in Europe over the last decade. It is only to be regretted that many of these schemes have been abandoned because of the 1985 collapse in oil prices. They should be re- instated. The development of the wind turbine industry in Denmark and the Netherlands shows what can be done to encourage new industries. In Denmark, a National Test Centre was established to help manufacturers improve the reliability and performance of their machines; grants have been made available to stimulate market demand, and local authorities are encouraged to remove obstacles placed in the way of installing wind turbines. A national target for wind has been set at 1,000 megawatts installed by 2000. The Dutch government also provides financial assistance, and has established an office of Ombudsman of wind energy. The Belgian government, and certain provincial authorities in West Germany, have simplified planning procedures for wind turbines to encourage their deployment. Box 4 Government R&D Spending on Renewables in Selected Countries, 1986 Renewables Share of Energy Spending R&D Expenditure R&D Budget Per Capita (million $) (percent) $ Sweden 17.3 21.8 2.06 Switzerland 10.2 14.7 1.57 Netherlands 17.0 10.6 1.17 West Germany 65.9 11.6 1.09 Greece 9.7 63.2 0.97 Japan 99.2 4.3 0.82 United States 177.2 7.8 0.82 Italy 29.5 3.9 0.52 Denmark 2.6 17.8 0.51 Spain 19.4 27.8 0.51 United Kingdom 16.6 4.4 0.29 Canada* 7.0 0.27 * Canadian federal government spending on renewables: $7 million dollars for 1990/91. Source: International Energy Agency, 'Energy Policies and Programmes in IEA Countries, 1986 Review' (Paris OECD, 1987) Box 5 Government Support Schemes for New and Renewable Energy Sources: Selected European Examples, Past and Present Many countries have encouraged the introduction of new technologies by adopting a wide range of support schemes. The purpose has been as much to overcome market inertia as to counteract the sometimes obstructive behaviour of established energy industries. These schemes have been designed either to assist the producers of specific technologies, or to stimulate a market for their products, both at home and abroad. The intention has always been to withdraw such support as soon as the new industries are established and can fend for themselves in the hostile energy market. Such schemes fall naturally into two categories: non-financial incentives which include publicity, education and training programmes, product testing, and advice on production, marketing and energy use; and financial incentives such as grants, loans, tax relief, favourable borrowing terms, risk underwriting, and export credits. The list below gives some examples. Belgium: accelerated depreciation rates for companies investing in renewables; 35 percent grants for biogas installations Canada: in the past provided up to 50 percent incentives for people to purchase solar water heating systems. This programme is no longer available. Another programme no longer in place made selected renewable and energy-efficient products exempt from federal and provincial sales tax. Denmark: various grants are available for a range of renewables including straw burners and wind turbines France: grants available for industrial users of small hydroelectric plants; assistance to solar cell manufacturers; underwriting of drilling risks for geothermal heating projects German Federal Republic: accelerated depreciation for certain renewables; grants for biomass waste incineration, hydroelectric, solar and wind energy use Greece: grants for biogas plant (10 to 50 percent, depending on region); loans and tax relief for solar water heating Italy: grants or loans with interest subsidy (up to 50 percent) for certain renewables Netherlands: assistance with development costs for wind turbine manufacturers; grants for purchasers of wind turbines and solar water heaters Portugal: partial exemption from sales tax on certain wind, solar and geothermal equipment Spain: reduction on import duties for certain renewables; grants for domestically produced solar water heating and solar cooling equipment Sweden: grants for burning wood waste and oil substitution United Kingdom: financial assistance to selected users and producers of renewables (under demonstration projects scheme) CONCLUSIONS This paper makes four main points: 1. Profligate use of fossil fuels and uranium is increasing stress on the global environment. Responsibility for most of the damage lies with the rich countries of the OECD and COMECON, which use energy with gross inefficiency. These countries could cut energy use dramatically -without compromising living standards - by adopting different policies. Canada is in an excellent position to take significant action. Leaving aside wind and other systems, Canadian sunlight annually gives us 3,000 times the energy we currently consume. 2. Investment in improving energy efficiency is cheaper than investment in new supply and involves considerably less financial and environmental risk. The techniques are widely used and well understood. Moreover, a unit of energy saved by improved efficiency is more valuable than a unit of energy supplied because it generates no pollution. 3. Renewable sources of energy (notably sunshine, biomass, and hydropower) supply a major part of the world's energy. In the long-term, they could make a much bigger contribution given dedicated governmental commitment. The resources are enormous. A vast range of renewable energy technologies are now available; most have significantly less impact on the environment than do conventional technologies. 4. The main obstacles to greater energy efficiency and the further use of renewable energy are not technical, but political and institutional. Many suggestions have been made as to how the difficulties could be overcome. It is now time for action. The consequences of failure to respond positively are unthinkable. Sources: BAZAGA, A (1988): 'Small Hydropower', in 'Euroforum New Energies', Proceedings of International Congress, Saarbrucken, Germany, 24 - 28 October 1988, H S Stephensens & Associates BROWN, A et al (1988): 'Energy Recovery Through Waste Combustion', Elsevier Applied Science, London COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (1988): 'Evaluation of EEC Energy Demonstration Programme Energy Efficiency and Renewables Projects' COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (1988): 'Euroforum New Energies', Proceedings of International Congress, Saarbrucken, Germany, 24 - 28 October 1988, H.S. Stephensens & Associates DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (1988): 'Renewable Energy in the UK: The Way Forward', Energy Paper No. 55, HMSO, London E.M.R. (1988), see various publications from E.M.R., Alternative Energy Research and Development Branch, Jack Cole, Director, Canada EVANS, D (ed) (1988): 'Energy from Ocean Waves', Euromechanics Colloquium 243, 26 - 28 September 1988, University of Bristol, UK FLOOD, M (1986): 'Energy Without End: The case for renewable energy', Friends of the Earth, London GODDARD, J (1990): 'Dammed if They Do'; 'Proposed hydro projects imperil northern rivers and a way of life', Arrowsmith, September 1990, pp 40-51 GOLDEMBERG, Jose, et al (1987): 'Energy for a Sustainable World', World Resources Institute HOHMEYER, Olav (1988): 'The Social Costs of Energy Consumption - External Effects of Electricity Generation in the Federal Republic of Germany', Springer Verlag, Berlin INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY (1987): 'Renewable Sources of Energy', OECD, Paris INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL STATISTICS, Yearbook 1989. 331989 International Monetary Fund, Volume XLII IPPSO FACTO, Publication of the Independent Power Producers' Society of Ontario - Special release January 1990, pp 8,9 IRT PUBLICATIONS: 'Energy Efficiency: Economic and Environmental Profit', Ted Flanigan, Quarterly Supplement, August 1990, The Energy Newsbrief, Colorado JOHN PASSMORE ASSOCIATES, 'The Private Power Option for Canada', Ottawa, 1987 KEEPIN, Bill & KATS, Gregory (1988): 'Greenhouse Warming: Comparative Analysis of Two Abatement Strategies', Energy Policy, December LEWIS, T (1985): 'Wave Energy: Evaluation for CEC', Graham & Trotman, for the European Commission LOVINS, A B et al (1981): 'Least-Cost Energy: Solving the CO2 Problem', Brick House, Andover MA MOLLE, J F (1988): 'Biomass for Energy in Europe', in 'Euroforum New Energies', Proceedings of International Congress, Saarbrucken, Germany, 24 - 28 October 1988, H S Stephensens & Associates ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC COOPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT (1988): 'Environmental Impacts of Renewable Energy', the OECD Compass Project SELZER, H (1986): 'Wind Energy: Potential of Wind Energy in the European Community - an Assessment', D Reidel Publishing Company THATCHER, M (1988): Prime Ministers speech to the Royal Society, 22 September WORLD COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT (1987): 'Our Common Future', Oxford University Press TERMINOLOGY CEC Commission of the European Communities CED Committee for Economic Development CFC Chlorofluorocarbon CH4 methane CO2 carbon dioxide COMECON economic trading pact between the USSR and the Eastern European countries DEn Department of Energy (UK) EC European Community E.M.R. Ministry of Energy, Mines and Resources (Canada) GDP Gross Domestic Product gigawatt a unit of power equal to one billion watts GmbH Gesellschaft mit beschrankter Hoftung (German limited liability company) IDEA Institute for Energy Diversification and Savings IEA International Energy Agency kilowatt a unit of power with an approximate value of 1.34 horsepower megawatt a unit of power equal to one million watts MSW Municipal Solid Waste mtoe million tonnes of oil equivalent N2O nitrous oxide O3 ozone OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (North American, Western European, Australasian countries and Japan) R&D R&D funds are the conservation and renewable energy portion of the Energy Research and Development Programme RD&D Research Development & Demonstration toe tonne of oil equivalent watt the unit of power (power indicates the rate at which energy is delivered) WCED World Commission on Environment and Development WTG Wind Turbine Generators The internationally recognized system of units (the Systeme Internationale) is based on the metre, the kilogram, and the second. The unit of energy is the joule, and the unit of power is the watt. Power indicates the rate at which energy is delivered - one watt is a joule per second. A single bar electric fire radiates heat at a rate of 1,000 watts. If it 'burns' for one hour it will radiate 3,600,000 joules of heat - that is, 1,000 watts for 3,600 seconds. A fit man will deliver about the same amount of energy in a day's work. kilo one thousand 10(3) mega one million 10(6) giga one billion 10(9) tera one trillion 10(12) peta one million billion 10(15) exa one billion billion 10(18)