Don Potts has a quick reponse in the Sun today to Marc Jaccard’s column in the Saturday issue.
(Potts is executive director of the Joint Industry Electricity Steering Committee, which represents the major industrial users of purchased electric power in B.C. Marc Jaccard is an SFU professor in resources and author of “Sustainable Fossil Fuels.” I reference his criticism of the province’s approval of coal-fired power plants without carbon capture in this post below.)
Says Potts:

Others have voiced opposition to coal burning because of increased greenhouse-gas emissions. While an important issue worldwide, the issue needs to be dealt with on a comprehensive national/international basis and not unilaterally applied to a single technology after proponents have developed plans in good faith that comply with the terms of BC Hydro’s call for tender and the newly established provincial emission standards. To reject these facilities now … sends a costly message to those in the private sector who may want to help supply the growing need for electric power in B.C.

Translation: Don’t punish us because BC Hydro doesn’t give a damn about climate change. If you do, you won’t get more carbon-spewing plants in the future.
I am increasingly astonished at those who think we can make decisions today without having to bear the consequences of our actions. Or assume that there will not be economic implications in the future when we decide to ignore carbon pricing today.
So what should be doing? Not surprisingly, California is preparing itself.

California utilities would be prohibited from buying electricity from most coal-burning power plants in neighboring states under far-reaching regulations proposed by state energy regulators Wednesday.
The rules … would limit the amount of carbon dioxide new power plants in the state could emit. … Under the rules, the state’s investor-owned utilities would not be allowed to buy power from any source that spews more carbon dioxide than does a modern natural gas power plant. Specifically, the source could not emit more than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide for every megawatt hour of electricity produced. That’s enough energy to light 750 homes for one hour. (Full story in the San Francisco Chronicle here.)

Is that what B.C. should tell investors: You can build your plants – but only if they’re less carbon-polluting than a natural-gas plant.
Says Marc Jaccard:

It makes sense. The regulations do not ban coal. They set a limit on CO2/Kwh to the level of a clean natural gas plant. This will force coal plant developers to move more quickly to coal plants with carbon capture and storage – which will still be cheaper than natural gas plants, nuclear and most renewables. California is once again setting the trend.

The Daily Score at Sightline praises the California initiative here, but cautions that it would be easy for power suppliers to, say, buy hydro power from the Northwest – and then let us buy the coal-originated power. In other words, we could launder the polluting power – unless we had the same requirements as California.
Jaccard doesn’t share that fear:

Forgot the bit about coal-power laundering. There are reporting procedures about electricity transfers that make it fairly easy to see if BC Hydro or anyone else is laundering dirty electricity to California. If there were nothing but small players, that would be one thing. But the transmission lines are controlled by big entities. Vigilence will be required, but since most jurisdictions are likely to follow California in emission regulations, it should be easy to prevent this kind of thing.

He, too, assumes British Columbia will follow California. But not presumably if Mr. Potts can rely on Premier Campbell, the provincial government and B.C. Hydro to ignore climate change.
(Yesterday I asked a selection of people I met at holiday parties, some of whom are Liberal supporters: “True or False – Gordon Campbell has had nothing to say about climate change.” Without exception: True.)

Comments

  1. To quote
    myself, Marc Jaccard may be deluding himself about carbon sequestration, or it may be a clever ploy to call polluters’ bluff on carbon capture and storage. This would be a dangerous technology if it existed. You pump vast amounts of CO2 underground and hope it doesn’t leak out some day and kill all living things. So setting a target based on a non-existent technology is a good way to ban coal without banning coal.
    There are two other ways to get around this. One good way is to increase the efficiency of coal-fired plants. Efficiency is about 33% for coal-fired plants and could be improved for a price. The other way is to package clean energy like hydro with dirty sources so that it averages less than the legal threshold.
    I also note that the article talks about emissions per kilowatt produced, not consumed. After transmission and distribution losses you can lose 10% or more of the electricity in transmission when it comes from further away.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *