I got into a discussion with a political type recently about cutting greenhouse gas emissions. My initial question was about the use of carbon capture technology, like that used in the Boundary Dam Integrated Carbon Capture Project.
The person I was speaking to scoffed, saying it was a $1.5 billion experiment, no one else is doing similar carbon capture, and there must be a reason for that. Yet this same person thinks we shouldn鈥檛 shut down the coal industry in Saskatchewan, either. She also thinks we should be aiming to set greenhouse gas reductions similar to other provinces who have done well in that regard, but, as I pointed out, have done it by getting rid of coal 铿乺ed power.
At the end of the conversation, I wanted to bang my head against the wall.
Let鈥檚 throw some numbers out there. According to Saskatchewan鈥檚 Ministry of the Environment, Saskatchewan鈥檚 2012 greenhouse gas emissions totalled 74.8 million tonnes. Of that 21 per cent was from electricity generation.
SaskPower鈥檚 website says that 鈥淚n Saskatchewan, coal accounts for 47 per cent of our fuel and produces 70 per cent of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.鈥�
My numbers, which I admit are rough, put that at about 11 million tonnes per year of GHG emissions. Now, remember, this was before Boundary Dam retired coal-铿乺ed Units 1 and 2. And this was before the carbon capture project began removing about one million tonnes per year from Unit 3, roughly 90 per cent of its emissions.
Let鈥檚 start off with this assumption: BD3 generated about 150 megawatts before it was replaced. After its replacement its net output is 110 megawatts 鈥� the difference being made up for by the parasitic load to power the capture process, which captures one million tonnes per year from 150 megawatts of generation. I believe overall these power output numbers have turned out a little higher, but let鈥檚 work with this for now.
BD4 and 5 are the same size 鈥� 150 megawatts. Unit 6 is 300. So if they all had carbon capture, you鈥檇 be capturing an additional four million tonnes per year, roughly. Poplar River Power Station has 582 megawatts of production, so with CO2 capture that would be another four million tonnes captured. Shand Power station is 276 megawatts, so that would add another two million, thereabouts.
The total, if all the coal-fired units in Saskatchewan had carbon capture it adds up to about 11 million tonnes a year, the number we started with before. It鈥檚 close enough to be within the fudge factor.
Now, how could we possibly make that sort of reduction in Saskatchewan otherwise? We could shut down the coal industry entirely, abandoning all the billions of dollars of existing power generating and distribution infrastructure, and start burning natural gas. It鈥檚 cheap today, but probably not in the future.
A much touted carbon tax is a fallacy. Let鈥檚 say we brought in a 20cent carbon tax per litre of gasoline and diesel. That still will not stop me from driving, any more than the cost of gasoline going up to $1.43 per litre did in 2008. I still need to work, and get to work, as does everyone else. And I鈥檓 not likely to switch to a dramatically more ef铿乧ient vehicle, either. Nope, it will just end up being a tax with little emission reduction result 鈥� certainly not 11 million tonnes worth.
Indeed, SaskPower advertises that BD3鈥檚 one million tonnes per year reduces the equivalent emissions of taking 250,000 cars of the road. If that is true, than a reduction of 11 million would be equal to 2,750,000 cars off the road.
The same graph from which I got the 74.8 million tonnes 铿乬ure shows personal and business transportation total 21 per cent of emissions, or the same as our entire electricity output.
These numbers are very rough, but the point is we鈥檙e not going to stop driving wholesale, so if we want to make emissions cuts, where is the easiest place to do it?It鈥檚 at the point sources of the highest concentrations of CO2.
Build the capture plants.
听
