Nova Scotia, historically a coal-addicted province, is in renewable rehab
Last week I spent a few days in Halifax, Nova Scotia as a guest of Nova Scotia Power, which covered the cost of my trip. There I spoke with several N.S. Power executives, N.S. Premier Darrell Dexter, and toured a number of electricity generation sites — gas, tidal, wind. I had heard the province was getting serious about renewables and energy conservation, but I was pleasantly surprised at how serious. My Clean Break column today is about the transition Nova Scotia is making to renewable energy. It’s only the jurisdiction in North America with a hard cap on carbon emissions and by law it has to have 25 per cent of its electricity system supplied by renewables. By 2020, its goal is to up that to 40 per cent through aggressive conservation efforts, development of at least one import-export transmission link (to New Brunswick or Labrador) and an embrace of tidal power. Considering this is a province that gets more than three-quarters of its electricity from fossil fuels — mostly coal — this is a big leap.
Nova Scotia is out to prove that tidal power can be competitive with other sources. It has the only tidal power facility in North America and one of just three in the world — the Annapolis Tidal Power Plant, which I visited and found fascinating. It’s an old barrage-style facility constructed in the early 1980 and only capable of generating about 20 megawatts. Newer technologies planned for the Bay of Fundy, however, include turbines developed by Ireland-based OpenHydro, which is testing one of its machines near the Annapolis site. N.S. Power sees it quite realist to develop about 300 MW of tidal power in Nova Scotia between now and 2020, or roughly 10 per cent of the province’s capacity. Not bad. Some studies suggest there’s as much as 2,000 MW of development potential there.
In a country where the federal government considers green energy policy and investment a nuisance, it’s refreshing to see yet another province kick its green plans into high gear.
Tyler Hamilton is editor-in-chief of Corporate Knights magazine and a business columnist for the Toronto Star, Canada's largest daily newspaper. In addition to this Clean Break blog, Tyler writes a weekly column of the same name that discusses trends, happenings and innovators in the clean technology and green energy market. This blog is a personal project started in April 2005. It is not an official blog of the newspaper.
August 23rd, 2010 at 10:49 am
Do you write about green energy or is this a greenwashing blog? A hard cap without a viable plan or any enforcement is greenwashing that only delays a carbon reduced future.
In case you missed it Nova Scotia has given NSP a five year exemption on reducing mercury when they failed to meet the target. The carbon pledge will go the same way. It is not possible to get Lower Churchill online in time to meet the 2015 and 2020 targets.
In addition large scale hydro is not carbon free. The vegetation inundated will emit CO2 for at least 15 years. The aeration at the turbines emits CO2 constantly. The result is NOT green power. The World Commission on Dams has stated hydro larger than 5 megawatts is not green power. Why do you encourage the myth of “green” hydropower?
New capacity displaces the most expensive energy source usually. Coal is the last to be displaced. The new additional capacity will not reduce CO2, it may in fact add to net CO2 emmissions.
Nova Scotia is extending the NSP monopoly that will ensure no strengthening of the grid to support more renewables. As you point out there is no open access to the grid for renewable energy. Only friends of NSP need apply to the monopolist for energy contracts.
NS will not buy photovoltaic (PV) from producers. Why? Could it be they are trying to protect the monopoly NSP has enjoyed for much too long. Do you really beleive the utility with one of the dirtiest generation schemes in the country will lead us to the promised land with their monopoly protected.
Dramatically reducing demand and open access to a strong grid is the only solution. Nova Scotia is doing neither.
August 23rd, 2010 at 11:51 am
Don’t be fooled by the propaganda. This article fails to mention that last month Premier Darrell Dexter exempted Nova Scotia Power from mercury emission laws under the pretext of reducing costs for importing low mercury coal. Truth is, the exemption allows the province to continue strip mining 450,000 tonnes a year of high mercury, high sulphur coal from DNR Crown land in Point Aconi, Cape Breton and burn it at NSPI’s Lingan power plant, but never ever mention this mining is going on at this first of 14 proposed strip mines in Cape Breton. Also not mentioned is the biomass plant NSPI wants to build to “offset” emissions from burning domestic coal. Now that the government has exempted mining and burning this high polluting coal from every environmental regulation and created a market for it, there’s nothing stopping them from strip mining the rest of the region under the government’s deceitful disguise of “reclamation”. Nova Scotia has taken a gigantic step 10 years backward, and just because the law says something does not mean that they’ll ever enforce it.
For the inconvenient truth about Nova Scotia’s dirty secret visit ww.c-a-s-m.org
August 23rd, 2010 at 12:27 pm
Can we say paranoid? For one, don’t confuse mercury regulations with greenhouse gas regs and carbon caps. Second, from what I understand N.S. Power was on target to meet its mercury emission reduction goals but it was going to mean higher prices for consumers because of the added cost of emision-control equipment. So the government, facing grumpy citizens who didn’t like the idea of electricity rates going up so quickly to fight mercury, decided to phase it in more slowly to buffer the price impact. Perhaps it was a cowardly position to take. That said, people want it both ways — eliminate all the nasty emissions right away but don’t raise our electricity rates.
re: hydropower. I don’t recall talking about massive hydro dams. I mentioned tidal. And yes, if done correctly, it is green energy. What do you propose, folks? You bitch and complain about every scenario except, what — conservation? Yes, conservation can go a long way but has its limits. You are full of complaints, but not offering much in the way of solutions. So come back when you have something constructive to say.
August 23rd, 2010 at 5:25 pm
Recently found your blog and enjoy reading your updates! Thank you for the good work.
Samir
Kanata, ON
August 23rd, 2010 at 9:51 pm
We’re not confusing mercury and carbon and greenhouse gases at all, just doing our part at keeping you honest to enable any informed discussion.
Contrary to your propaganda, in a June 2010 report Nova Scotia’s Environment Deprtment says NSPI’s mercury emissions last year were double what they were supposed to be.
Contrary to your propaganda, there’s nothing new about these emission regulations and NSPI has already installed mercury controls and charged consumers for the cost.
Paid propaganda pretending to be journalism is precisely just that.
August 23rd, 2010 at 10:24 pm
Well, enabling informed discussion and encouraging debate normally doesn’t include launching into accusations that information is “propaganda.” If you’re looking to engage in true debate, please drop the insults. I’ll promise to do the same.
Now, the column is focused on greenhouse gas emissions and wasn’t written to tackle the controversy surrounding mercury. It’s unfortunate that mercury standards have not been met in Nova Scotia, and presumably that’s something inherited from a previous government. Second, shortly after Dexter took power his government did come out with a renewable energy and conservation plan that sets targets, including a 2015 target put into law. It is what it is. If you have no faith in the current government to deliver, then you’re obviously entitled to that view. We’re all skeptical of government, but from my own outsider observations — reflected in the column — there seems to be a change of tone in the province that I welcome. And the fact is, Nova Scotia has a hard cap and plan that many other province’s don’t have. In Ontario, the McGuinty government initially committed to shutting down all coal by 2007… that target was changed several times and now it’s 2014. The goal is still commendable, and while seeing it done by 2007 would have been preferable, there are certain realities — both political and technical — with respect to managing an electricity system so that it remains reliable. Please keep in mind that in Ontario we’re less dependent on coal, but also we have a *single* coal plant here that could power Nova Scotia 1.5 times over. So we’re not oblivious to the mercury issue.
I’m glad you’re raising these issues, and I’ve let these comments freely appear on this blog. But please, refrain from getting too caustic.
August 24th, 2010 at 4:21 pm
I’ve removed two comments from this area because of their insulting and borderline libellous nature.
August 24th, 2010 at 8:03 pm
poor dear!
August 25th, 2010 at 12:30 am
Fact is, in Nova Scotia enforcement of environmental laws and regulations is entirely at the Ministers discretion and for the past 5 years the environment ministers have been making exemptions every step of the way as they strip mine high mercury, high sulphur coal from Crown land in Point Aconi, Cape Breton and burn it at NSPI’s power plants. This is just the first of 14 sites the province issued a call for proposals to strip mine plus Xstrata’s coal mine at Donkin under the province’s energy policy. Evidently you turned a blind eye to this Return of King Coal and the fact that as Premier Dexter’s exemption of NSPI from mercury emission laws goes to prove, it doesn’t matter what the laws says and at this rate there’s no reason to believe they’ll ever enforce any of it.
As the people of Point Aconi will tell you, it wouldn’t be so bad if they told the truth, especially journalists. You’re certainly not fooling anyone here with your greenwashing of NSPI and the the province’s energy policy.
August 26th, 2010 at 10:17 am
Jane, people like you make me sad because you take good developments in a province that sorely needs them and turn it into ‘more proof’ that the government doesn’t want to make progress. Dexter is trying. He has a plan, unlike our federal government. Jane if you keep whining when some issues in provinces aren’t addressed, you will be doing so indefinitely. You make me sad because to you, plans for progress are never enough. You are cynical! Have a little optimism and embrace the fact that our government, however cowardly it was to reduce the mercury standards, are trying to progress Nova Scotia.
August 26th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
Get real Duncan! If it was your home being shaken by blasts every week and covered in dirt and noise 24/7 and the brook through your property has turned orange while the government lies through its teeth and makes exemptions for the mining and power companies every step of the way, would you be whining if you dared to inform the public of the inconvenient truth that you can see with your own eyes on a daily basis?
Excuse me for daring to exercise my democratic rights and civic responsibilities, and try to do my part in keeping them honest including journalists, so that the public can form an educated opinion based on facts instead of fantasy and propaganda.
August 26th, 2010 at 1:03 pm
Jean, I’m sympathetic — I am — but my column was about a renewable energy plan put out by a relatively new government. It was not about mercury emissions. I have no problem with you raising the issue of mercury, and want you to, but your position seems to be that all governments in Nova Scotia lie and can’t be trusted, so don’t believe all this crap about green energy because the government of Nova Scotia lied to us in the past about mercury. Fine — that’s your position. It’s a very negative position and it’s not mine. Question: if you don’t trust anything government says, then what is your solution? An overnight closure of all Nova Scotia mines?
I’m just confused here as to what you’re trying to accomplish by berating me for a column I wrote that has nothing to do specifically about mercury, even though there is an indirect connection between coal reduction and renewables and mercury reductions. I read the government plan and as an outsider looking in, it looks good. I can only comment on the plan, relative to actions/plans being made by other provinces, and hope the government follows through. For some reason, you believe this approach makes me a “dishonest” person who is making stuff up and spreading propaganda. I have no motivation to be dishonest or to spread propaganda about Nova Scotia, so I’m curious why you insist on making insults.
Yes, I was invited as one of only dedicated clean energy reporters in Canada to visit the province and observe for two days. It was no vacation — more than 10 interviews and six hours of driving over two days. I don’t like flying and would rather not done the trip and stayed home instead with my kids during these two days in August, but I also don’t like to dwell on what’s going on in my home province of Ontario and thought it beneficial to give broader exposure to events in Nova Scotia. I would not have been able visit if I had to pay for the flight and accomodations myself. Sorry if that seems to compromise my credibility in your mind, but it is what it is.
August 26th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
It’s not about the mercury, it`s about the return to mining and burning domestic coal that you fail to mention in your article. But don’t feel bad, no one ever mentions the 450,000 tonnes of high mercury, high sulphur coal a year they’ve been strip mining and burning at Lingan and the reason for the exemptions, it’s Nova Scotia`s dirty secret.
Excuse me for daring to challenge your greenwashed portrait of Nova Scotia’s energy policy with some relevant facts that the public has a right to know whether the propagandists like it or not.
August 27th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
This is a very interesting discussion, and points to an important issue: The neglect of environmental pollutants with a focus of carbon. Don’t get me wrong, both are important, but commending NSPI on its green initiatives without mentioning the recent exemption in mercury emissions seems biased to me. Mercury pollutants have known, direct consequences on our ecosystem, arguably with more explicit effects than those of carbon emissions. I have been reading Clean Break for several years and continue to read for its unbiased, honest consideration of the pros and cons of green energy, but I feel that the exclusion of this information in the article does not live up to the standards I have come to expect from the blog. That said, I very much commend NSPI on its green initiatives and am very excited at the growth prospects for renewables on the east coast.
August 27th, 2010 at 6:43 pm
Hi Dan — reading for several years? That makes me smile.
Re: your comment, I understand what you’re saying but do think it an unfair judgement. To suggest that I cover all imaginable pollutants when I talk about renewable energy is a bit unrealistic. I mean, should I talk about water issues? Impact on wildlife and biodiversity? I’m a clean energy reporter, not a pure environmental reporter, so historically I have focused on green solutions. I agree, from a policy perspective we can’t neglect some pollutants by overfocusing on carbon, but a move to have 40 per cent of the grid supplied by renewable energy by 2020 implies reduced coal use and a reduction in mercury. The mercury issue raised on this site is about a specific community in Nova Scotia being affected by what little provincial mining exists relative to the history of Nova Scotia’s coal industry. Should I write about resistance over wind or tidal projects in Nova Scotia? Where do I draw the line on a given story?
The government backtracking on mercury emissions was a political decision I was not about to weigh into, and from talking to well-respected NGOs like the Pembina Institute the changes in the mercury-reduction plan will still see 2020 goals achieved. What has happened is they have relaxed reduction targets in the short-term but are aiming for steeper reductions in the long-term, with the effect that 2020 targets will be met. Put another way, for every gram of mercury reduction that N.S. Power misses between 2014 and 2018 it will be required to make it up beyond 2018 through deeper cuts. I’m sure Ms. Sawyer believes that’s all greenwashing, as she has consistently said in her comments, and if I lived in her community I might well say the same thing. But I’m not about to engage in a fight with her on a story I never intended to write.
August 28th, 2010 at 1:15 am
Based on several hours of interviews with Nova Scotia Power executives and the Premier of the province, the article in the Aug 23 2010 Toronto Star that initiated this discussion reports that Nova Scotia “used to get coal out of its own Cape Breton mines, but in the world of coal it was the dirtiest of the dirty, loaded with mercury and sulphur dioxide.” And when “it became a very expensive, difficult place to mine the province had to shop elsewhere. The imported coal contains less mercury and sulphur but it costs more.”
But the author of the article takes offence at anyone who dares to mention that King Coal is back in Cape Breton and the Premier has exempted NSPI from mercury emission regulations to enable burning it, and is now claiming that it was a “political decision” not worth informing readers about.
Btw, the specific community you belittle is the second largest municipality in Nova Scotia.
August 28th, 2010 at 10:08 am
What you fail to mention by requoting my story is that I also wrote “Today it gets 85 per cent of its supply from Columbia and the United States.” I never said all of the coal burned in Nova Scotia comes form elsewhere. Perhaps, to make you happy, I should have said instead “used to get *most* coal out of its own Cape Breton mines…”
To also make clear, I don’t “take offence” to you mentioning that King Coal still exists in Cape Breton, though I would still argue against the assertion that it’s”back” in any meaningful sense to previous levels. What I take offence to is your angry tone and your accusations, which are not constructive to the discussion. I have left your comments stand on this blog — I don’t have to; it’s my own personal blog — so I don’t see how I’m preventing you from informing readers. I have never said this is not worth informing readers about; I said it wasn’t the focus on my column so the exclusion wasn’t intentional.
Perhaps if you drop the anger and the attitude people will listen more sympathetically to you and the real concerns you have.
August 28th, 2010 at 10:13 am
BTW: another example of you twisting my words is by accusing me of belittling your community when I wrote “If I lived in her community I might well say the same thing.” I’m not entirely sure how that counts as “belittling” where you live.