Power Struggles
Skepticism about wet harvesting’s ecological bona fides abounds. A 2006 study by MNR and the Ontario Forest Research Institute, for example, warned that wet harvesting could harm regional biodiversity and the hydrology of the affected areas. Undaunted, PRL conducted its own engineering studies. In 2007, it applied to conduct an environmental assessment. In a first for the Ontario government, the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) refused to allow PRL even to proceed with an assessment.
Energy sprawl
As the world pushes to develop biofuels, concern is growing about the indirect impact energy crops have on forests and farmland, as well as about emissions. A 2008 study published in Science, for example, examined how land clearing and deforestation associated with the cultivation of crops such as palm, soy, sugar cane and corn led to large releases of carbon, with the result that the net emissions related to those biofuels exceed those of the fossil fuels they are meant to replace.
The authors who calculated the “carbon debt and repayment” for each biofuel, defined carbon debt as “the amount of carbon dioxide released during the first 50 years of this process.” In some cases, the results are discouraging: for biodiesel from soybean and palm cultivated in former rainforests of Brazil and Indonesia, reabsorption takes 319 and 423 years, respectively; for ethanol from corn grown on abandoned cropland and prairies in the United States, it takes 48 and 93 years respectively. The fastest return – a year or less – is on biomass ethanol produced from switchgrasses.
Meanwhile, in a major study of “energy sprawl,” The Nature Conservancy estimated that hundreds of thousands of square kilometres of land in the United States could be pressed into service for growing energy crops if politicians mandate biofuel content in gasoline and biomass fuel for electricity generation. Many observers advise taking extreme caution in proceeding with such plans. Last summer, a team of prominent scientists issued a manifesto in Science, arguing that to achieve GHG reductions without impairing food production, biofuels should come only from sources such as perennial plants grown on abandoned farmlands, crop residues, sustainably harvested forest slash and municipal or industrial waste. Peat was not on the list.
J.L.
Telford insists that the application was turned down due to politics and “silly administrative reasons.” Were there environmental objections? “No,” he says, “there were not.” The record suggests otherwise. MOE officials and former environment minister Laurel Broten sharply dismissed PRL’s application, expressing grave concerns about the ecological impact of wet harvesting on provincially significant wetlands. Nevertheless, Broten left the door ajar, advising Telford that PRL could pursue a pilot project to gain “further insight into the environmental impact of harvesting and utilizing peat for energy use.” PRL has secured Ontario government research grants, as well as a short-term permit to burn up to 500 tonnes of peat pellets at Atikokan.
The early research results are not encouraging. Lakehead University scientists working with PRL concluded that peat releases more sulfur dioxide – a noxious component of smog – than wood when peat is burned alongside coal. Peat also contains high concentrations of metals, such as mercury, and chlorides that damage boilers.
Perhaps that is why OPG has downplayed the potential for burning peat and does not mention it on the biomass page on its website. And while Young says OPG “hasn’t closed the door” on using peat, he would need to be convinced about its performance and environmentally benign impact. “Peter Telford may be right that it’s cheaper,” he adds, “but there are other fundamental issues that are roadblocks.”
What’s the difference?
Biomass: Any organic material – branches, crop waste, prairie grasses, garbage – that can be burned for heat energy. Garbage also releases methane, which can be trapped and used for fuel.
Biofuel: Either ethanol or biodiesel that has been refined from carbon-rich plants such as corn, sugar cane, soy or palm. Some biodiesel comes from cooking grease and rendered animal fats.
Second-generation biofuel: The next wave of biofuels, which will come from refining non-food organic matter, such as fibrous trees and plants, and genetically modified algae. Also known as “cellulosic ethanol.”
Fossil fuel: Coal, natural gas and crude oil. Trapped in the earth, these fuels are massive and ancient storehouses of nonrenewable hydrocarbons, which are released into the atmosphere in the form of greenhouse gases when such fuels are burned to produce electricity or run engines.
J.L.
Not the least of these is the absence of a policy that states whether peat qualifies as a renewable energy source. Ottawa says yes. The European Union, swayed by the peat-rich Scandinavian countries, categorizes it as a “long-term” renewable resource. Ontario is currently mulling the question as it prepares the Green Energy Act regulations. The crucial point is whether the harvesting of peat represents a net increase in atmospheric GHG. Telford insists that peat releases less carbon dioxide than wood does. “They’re going to have to go in and harvest forests,” he says. “If you’re going to deforest, how can you claim GHG credits?” PRL has repeatedly claimed that wetlands emit methane, a GHG, and thus harvesting peat serves to reduce overall carbon emissions.
Environmental groups and climate experts balk at the suggestion that digging up sensitive wetlands should be seen as a solution to anthropogenic climate change. Because it takes so long to form, “[peat] is only ‘renewable’ on a time scale of many centuries, which means that, for the purposes of stopping global warming, we should consider it a fossil fuel,” says Keith Stewart, energy analyst at WWF Canada. One study on GHG emissions from Canadian peat warned that reabsorption of the carbon liberated from peat harvesting could take 2,000 years.
Despite all the known drawbacks of using peat as a fuel source, Ontario continues to hedge its bets. “There’s tremendous interest in peat,” Minister Gravelle says, “but we recognize that further review is required.”
Back at Nanticoke, Young and Lumley sit in a meeting room in a two-storey office building dwarfed by the turbine hall. An old aerial photograph of Nanticoke hangs on the wall – an image that offers a reminder of Ontario Hydro’s (the predecessor of OPG) appetite for Herculean engineering projects. The OPG of 2009 is a very different entity – a generating company that competes with private players and no longer calls the shots.
While the government wants to find uses for assets like Nanticoke and create new markets for the forest sector, the future looks modest down here by the shore of Lake Erie. As Young notes, OPG’s coal plants produced 25 terawatt hours of electricity in 2008; under the biomass plan, the output will be one-ninth of that.
Young adds that no one should expect OPG’s move to biomass to be an economic panacea. “We’re not going to solve the forest industry’s problems.”
Environmentalists are, in turn, hoping that the utility’s green energy gambit will not create any new problems for the wilds of northern Ontario.
John Lorinc is a Toronto journalist and author. He contributes regularly to the Globe and Mail, and writes about green energy issues for the New York Times Green Inc. blog.
Comments
Tell us what you're thinking...