Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Despite enormous wind power potential, Canada could support virtually
any technological platform for generating electricity. However, fossil fuel
technologies have enjoyed political favor because the government is able
to tax the resources as they are extracted and tax the electricity as it is
provided. his double taxation characteristic is not a feature of renewable
energy technologies.
Perhaps the greatest technological inluence on energy policy in Canada is
the prospect of equipping fossil fuel-ired power plants with CCS technology
to preserve status quo. Although CCS is far from a commercially viable tech-
nology and a number of ecological risks associated with the concept have
yet to be mitigated, the mere possibility that this technology may enable
provinces to decarbonize the electricity generation mix, without actually
transitioning away from technologies that make double taxation possible,
tends to soften political support for alternative energy technologies. he
Albertan government's energy strategy is indicative of this “have your cake
and eat it too” outlook: “while (Alberta's oil sands) account for just four per
cent of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions and less than one tenth of one
per cent of all global greenhouse gases, (they) are a large fossil fuel resource
and therefore provide a tremendous responsibility and opportunity for
Alberta to lead.”
51
In Ontario, there is an additional technological phenomenon that inlu-
ences energy policy—technological lock. Ontario is the vanguard prov-
ince for nuclear power development and indeed, now hosts over 95% of
the nation's nuclear generation capacity. In advocating for contentious
technologies such as nuclear power, ideological positions are staked out,
political battles are fought, and long-term investments are made.
52
Unless
the supporting regime is replaced, it is diicult to enact change. Even if
regime change does occur, sunken investment can preclude technological
transition. For example, the nuclear power plants in Ontario, which are
currently operational, represent long-term capital investments. hey are
progressively amortized annually. Until these plants are fully amortized, a
switch to alternative forms of technology would require expensive capital
write-ofs.
Technological lock tends to be manifest in one other facet of Canadian
electricity generation—rural service. Many communities are sparsely pop-
ulated and remote. Historically, such communities have relied on highly
responsive technologies such as hydropower when available, and in the
absence of hydropower, combustion turbines operating on natural gas pro-
vided responsive, peak-load power lows. Electricity systems of remote com-
munities such as these are less resilient than larger urban electricity grids
because less surplus capacity exists in the grid. As such, further investment
