Connect with us

Economy

Energy transition will be much longer and more arduous than they’re telling you

Published

5 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Jock Finlayson

While many Canadian politicians and activists continue to trumpet the “energy transition” and conjure visions of a low-carbon future that supposedly lurks just around the corner, along comes Natural Resources Canada with its latest Energy Fact Book. A careful review of the publication pours cold water on any notion of a rapid shift to a fundamentally different energy system, one that features a much smaller role for the fossil fuels that now supply the vast majority of the energy used by Canadians.

The book contains a wealth of information on Canada’s large and notably diverse energy sector, covering production, consumption trends, investment, and the environmental impact of energy production and use.  Separately, Natural Resources Canada also publishes “energy profiles” for the individual provinces and territories that provide further insight into energy production and consumption patterns across the country.

Starting with energy production (and considering all sources of energy, including uranium), crude oil accounts for about 45 per cent of Canadian energy output, measured in petajoules. Natural gas and natural gas liquids comprise another 32 per cent, with uranium chipping in 11 per cent of primary energy production. Smaller shares come from coal (5 per cent), hydroelectricity (5 per cent) and “other” renewables (3 per cent).

The statistics on energy output confirm that fossil fuels dominate the mix of energy sources produced in Canada. There’s little reason to believe this will change in a significant way in the near term.

Turning to energy consumption, a review of the most recent information leads to a broadly similar conclusion.

Based on Statistics Canada’s latest data, industry, collectively, is responsible for about 35 per cent of final end-use energy demand; this category includes manufacturing, natural resource extraction and processing, and construction. Transportation is the second-largest consumer of energy (29 per cent of final demand), followed by the residential (16 per cent) and commercial sectors (14 per cent).

What about the various sources of energy Canadians depend on for their comfort and well-being and to enable industrial and other business activity? Refined petroleum products rank first, providing about two-fifths of all energy consumed. Natural gas is second (35-36 per cent). Electricity comprises just 16-17 per cent of the energy used in Canada. Overall, fossil fuels still meet more than three quarters of Canadians’ requirements for primary energy.

Some may be surprised that electricity constitutes less than one-fifth of the energy used in Canada. A principal strategy of governments aspiring to slash greenhouse gas emissions is to redirect energy demand to electricity and away from oil, natural gas and other carbon-based energy sources. That makes sense, particularly since Canada’s existing electricity grid is about 80 per cent carbon-free. But a “big switch” to electricity won’t be easy. Consider that, over the first two decades of the millennium, Canadian natural gas consumption jumped by 34 per cent while electricity demand rose by 12 per cent. This underscores the resiliency of household and business demand for reliable affordable energy—of which natural gas is the best example.

Raising electricity’s share of total energy consumption will necessitate an enormous expansion across all segments of the Canadian electricity sector, encompassing not only the development of far more generation capacity but also the construction of additional transmission networks to deliver electric energy to end-users. Industry experts talk of boosting the amount of electricity produced in Canada by up to three times within two decades—a herculean task, assuming it’s even possible.

And, in line with the “net zero” goals espoused by many governments, virtually all of new electricity presumably must come from carbon-free sources (e.g., hydropower, other renewables, biomass, nuclear). There’s also the challenge of replacing the remaining carbon-based electricity still produced in Canada with carbon-free alternatives, as mandated by the Clean Electricity Regulations (CER) recently adopted by the Trudeau government.

Suffice to say the transition away from fossil fuels as the predominant source of energy consumed in Canada will be a lengthy and arduous journey and is sure to encounter more and bigger obstacles than most of Canada’s political class understands or cares to acknowledge.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Economy

Ottawa’s proposed ‘electricity’ regulations may leave Canadians out in the cold

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

In case you haven’t heard, the Trudeau government has proposed a new set of “Clean Electricity Regulations” (CERs) to purportedly reduce the use of fossil fuels in generating electricity. Basically, the CERs would establish new standards for the generation of electricity, limiting the amount of greenhouse gases that can be emitted in the process, and would apply to any unit that uses fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, oil) to generate electricity.

The CERs would hit hardest provinces that rely on fossil fuels to generate electricity: Alberta (89 per cent fossil fuels), Saskatchewan (81 per cent), Nova Scotia (76 per cent) and New Brunswick (30 per cent). Not so much Ontario (7 per cent) and Quebec (1 per cent), which are blessed with vast hydro potential.

In theory, the government has been in “consultation” with electricity producers and the provinces that will be most impacted by the CERs, although some doubt the government’s sincerity.

For example, according to Francis Bradley, CEO of Electricity Canada, which advocates for electricity  companies, there is “insufficient time to analyze and provide feedback that could meaningfully impact the regulatory design” adding that the “engagement process has failed to achieve its purpose.” And consequently, the current design of the CERS may impose “significant impairments to the reliability of the electricity system and severe affordability impacts in many parts of the country.”

This was not the first time folks observed a lack of meaningful consultation over the CERs. Earlier this year, Alberta Environment Minister Rebecca Schulz told CBC that an update to the CERs made “no meaningful corrections to the most destructive piece of Canadian electricity regulation in decades” and that CERs “would jeopardize reliability and affordability of power in the province.”

Simply put, with CERs the Trudeau government is gambling with high stakes—namely, the ability of Canadians to access reliable affordable electricity. Previous efforts at decarbonizing electrical systems in Ontario and around the world suggest that such efforts are relatively slow to develop, are expensive, and are often accompanied by periods of electrical system destabilization.

In Ontario, for example, while the provincial government removed coal-generation from its electricity generation from 2010 to 2016, Ontario’s residential electricity costs increased by 71 per cent, far outpacing the 34 per cent average growth in electricity prices across Canada at the time. In 2016, Toronto residents paid $60 more per month than the average Canadian for electricity. And between 2010 and 2016, large industrial users in Toronto and Ottawa experienced cost spikes of 53 per cent and 46 per cent, respectively, while the average increase in electric costs for the rest of Canada was only 14 per cent. Not encouraging stats, if you live in province targeted by CERs.

Reportedly, the Trudeau government plans to release a final version of the new CERs rules by the end of this year. Clearly, in light of the government’s failure to meaningfully consult with the electrical-generation sector and the provinces, the CERs should be put on hold to allow for longer and more sincere efforts to consult before these regulations go into effect and become too entrenched for reform by a future government.

Otherwise, Canadians may pay a steep price for Trudeau’s gamble.

Continue Reading

Alberta

Alberta rail hub doubling in size to transport plastic from major new carbon-neutral plant

Published on

Haulage bridge at Cando Rail & Terminals’ Sturgeon Terminal in Alberta’s Industrial Heartland, near Edmonton. Photo courtesy Cando Rail & Terminals

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Will Gibson

Cando Rail & Terminals to invest $200 million to support Dow’s Path2Zero petrochemical complex

A major rail hub in Alberta’s Industrial Heartland will double in size to support a new carbon-neutral plastic production facility, turning the terminal into the largest of its kind in the country.

Cando Rail & Terminals will invest $200 million at its Sturgeon Terminal after securing Dow Chemical as an anchor tenant for its expanded terminal, which will support the planned $8.9 billion Path2Zero petrochemical complex being built in the region northeast of Edmonton.

“Half of the terminal expansion will be dedicated to the Dow project and handle the products produced at the Path2Zero complex,” says Steve Bromley, Cando’s chief commercial officer.

Steve Bromley, chief commercial officer with Cando Rail & Terminals.

By incorporating carbon capture and storage, the complex, which began construction this spring, is expected to be the world’s first to produce polyethylene with net zero scope 1 and 2 emissions.

The widely used plastic’s journey to global markets will begin by rail.

“Dow stores their polyethylene in covered railcars while waiting to sell it,” Bromley says.

“When buyers purchase it, we will build unit trains and those cars will go to the Port of Prince Rupert and eventually be shipped to their customers in Asia.”

A “unit train” is a single train where all the cars carry the same commodity to the same destination.

The expanded Cando terminal will have the capacity to prepare 12,000-foot unit trains – or trains that are more than three-and-a-half kilometers long.

Construction will start on the expansion in 2025 at a 320-acre site west of Cando’s existing terminal, which 20 industrial customers use to stage and store railcars as well as assemble unit trains.

Bromley, a former CP Rail executive who joined Cando in 2013, says the other half of the terminal’s capacity not used by the Dow facility will be sold to other major projects in the region.

The announcement is the latest in a series of investments for Cando to grow its operations in Alberta that will see the company spend more than $500 million by 2027.

The company, which is majority owned by the Alberta Investment Management Corporation previously spent $100 million to acquire a 1,700-railcar facility in Lethbridge along with $150 million to build its existing Sturgeon terminal.

Cando Rail’s existing Sturgeon Terminal near Edmonton, Alberta. Photo courtesy Cando Rail & Terminals

“Alberta is important to us – we have 300 active employees in this province and handle 900,000 railcars annually here,” Bromley says.

“But we are looking for opportunities across North America, both in Canada and the United States as well.”

Cando released the news of the Sturgeon Terminal expansion at the Alberta Industrial Heartland Association’s annual conference on Sept. 19.

“This is an investment in critical infrastructure that underpins additional growth in the region,” says Mark Plamondon, the association’s executive director.

The announcement came as the association marked its 25th anniversary at the event, which Plamondon saw as fitting.

“Dow’s Path2Zero came to the region because of the competitive advantages gained by clustering heavy industry. Competitive advantages are built from infrastructure that’s already here, such as the Alberta Carbon Trunk Line, which transports and stores carbon dioxide for industry,” he says.

“Having that level of integration can turn inputs into one operation into outputs for another. Competitive advantages for one become advantages for others. Cando’s investment will attract others just as Dow’s Path2Zero was a pull for additional investment.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X