By Ted Cowan
The Ontario Federation of Agriculture joined with Ontario Sustainable Energy and the Environmental Defense Fund as an early backer of a Green Energy Act. We didn’t write the Act; we promoted the idea of having such an act. To halt net greenhouse gas releases Ontario would have to move to energy sources that have no aspect of fossil fuels in them. To replace the 3 terajoules of fossil fuels would require that farm and forest biofuels harness about 3% of the present 40 to 150 TJ of ‘unharvested’ sunlight at a 100% level of conversion. To sequester “Ontario’s share” of the 75 petatonnes of CO2 that has been added to the atmosphere in the past 50 years would require sequestering approx. 1.5 teratonnes a year for 200 years on our 3 million square kilometers. These are massive numbers. The Green Energy Act is a start.
The start is needed. The 25% of our fossil fuels that comes from conventional natural gas has perhaps a 40-year future. Conventional oil has a more limited time frame. Oil sands that currently sustain oil supplies may in turn be limited by water requirements. So biofuels are needed to limit GHG and because we’re running out of conventional supplies.
As a start and based on very rough guesses farms may be able to contribute:
• Biogas from manure: 3500 to 5000 units of approx. 200 to 250 kW each (average) for a capacity of between 0.7 and 1.25 GW of peaking capacity well distributed around the province
• Biomass for Nanticoke or Lambton or Nuclear Stations: At present Ontario farms can produce about 5 million tonnes of biomass a year without disturbing food production. This would be sufficient to run 2 GW of peaking capacity. This could be used on its own or co-burned with natural gas at existing fossil fuel plants or as supplemental heat to provide peaking capacity from nuclear plants. Longer term, and with suitable prices, Ontario farms can likely provide 16 or more million tonnes of biomass annually.
• Wind: most farms do not have good wind. Nonetheless Ontario could easily have 7,500 to 10,000 wind towers. As has been said many times, this is expensive, unreliable electricity. On the other hand it is a clean, low-cost replacement for auto and light truck fuel.
• Solar Heat: for 1 to 3 story buildings solar heat can provide an effective space and water heat replacement. On farms we anticipate costs of heat for pork and poultry barns can be reduced by approximately 70% using solar heating.
The Act will enable more conservation and more renewable energy production than without it. This will be a good start. And there is no need to start with more legally than we can do physically.
Where might some changes be made? The provisions for Green Energy Co-ops could be expanded from green generators only to green fuel producers such as bio-gas or bio mass.
Limits can be introduced to avert the conflicts that might arise if farmland is used for solar farms. One hundred acres can provide 10 MW of 42 cent a kWh solar power. As farmland it provides 500 tonnes of grain, sequesters 200 tonnes of carbon, and provides 200 tonnes of biomass for fuel which in turn displaces 70 tonnes of carbon from the coal not burned. So no solar on good farm land. The Act can provide for this now and I believe it will.
Noise limitations on wind farms or effective separation distances from rural homes will be needed. These rules should be science-based and provide for increasing separation distances as the number of towers near a home increases from 1 to 2 and so on. The aim should be to keep noise levels near the normal rural levels of 40 to 45 dB. Again the present act can provide for this.
A conservation structured price that provides residences with a base amount of power at a reasonable price and more at higher prices can encourage conservation. For farms and industry, energy is always a cost, so the price incentive for conservation is always there. The incentive might be shifted from price to rebates for reduced use levels. This may be a farther down the road step, but one worth thinking of.
Green energy is said to be too costly. In fact conservation at 3 cents a kWh is cheaper than delivered power at 9 to 12 cents a kWh. Coal is 4 cents right now. New nuclear might be as little as 8 cents a kWh. Biomass thermal can run for about 7 cents given a suitable price for fuel for farmers. Wind is 8 ½ cents to 14 cents. Expensive for electricity, but a low cost for gasoline. Natural gas peaking plants run at 13 to 17 cents a kWh. Imported coal power from the US is dirty peak power at 8 cents to 20 cents. Green power can be lower cost than conventional options. Not cheaper than the long-term average prices we have seen, but cheaper than many new conventional things that might come into the mix.
Green energy will change many things. It is too costly to tax in the way that we tax gas and diesel now. Governments run on taxes and will need an alternate fuel, possibly a carbon tax.
On farms, gross revenue is presently $ 9 billion a year in Ontario and net income is about $ 500 million for 2008. Green energy can add about $ 2 billion to the gross and $ 300 million plus to the net. This looks good to a lot of farmers. It can bring economic stability back to farms and farm families. It can provide a basis for improved soil management and help keep waters clean. And sensibly run it can contain power price increases for Ontario.
Ted Cowan works for the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. The opinions expressed above are his own, not necessarily OFA’s.