January 10, 2003
A burning question
Taming Nunavuts
addiction to fossil fuels
CLICK
PHOTO TO ENLARGE
Iqaluits
tank farm. Because of hidden subsidies, Nunavut consumers dont see the
depreciation and maintenance costs produced by community tank farms reflected
in their fuel and power bills.
(PHOTO BY KIRSTEN MURPHY)
|
DWANE
WILKIN
Special to Nunatsiaq News
Next to groping in a dark
sealift container acting out a mock rescue, touring Iqaluits power plant
must endure as a high point in every rookie firefighters apprenticeship.
Theres nothing like a peek into the furnace of artificial light to kindle
a healthy dread of danger.
Power-plant checks make
practical sense, of course, since able rescue workers have to anticipate catastrophe.
And the risk of inferno always looms here, where oil-fueled generators burn
round the clock, seven days a week.
Most Canadians who live
north of 60 depend on imported diesel power. Generating stations are as much
a part of life today as seal-oil lamps and dog sleds were a half-century ago.
They burn undying in communities
across the Arctic like a vast terrestrial constellation: ungainly, utterly vital
shrines to Canadas fossil-fuel addiction.
One of two wind turbines in Kugluktuk. The other
was damaged and doesnt work anymore.
(FILE PHOTO)
|
In Nunavut, the addiction
is total. Nunavuts 27,000 inhabitants burned a staggering 36 million litres
of imported fuel last year to brighten homes, chill food, cook meals, wash dishes,
launder clothes, surf the Net and watch television. Even more was burned
58 million litres keeping warm. And thats not counting the three
million litres of gasoline used to power the growing numbers of boats, snowmobiles
and cars.
In a land of harsh extremes
long, dark winters and brief, brilliant summers petroleum is like
sunshine in a bottle, the great energy equalizer in a nation of uneven strengths.
But at what price?
This past March, the government
released a landmark study on Nunavuts voracious hunger for fossil fuels
called Meeting Nunavuts Energy Needs, also known as "Ikuma II." The report
predicts that by 2004, one-fifth of the Nunavut governments $700-million
annual budget will be spent importing, storing and distributing fuel.
"Thats a huge amount
of our budget, and its going to continue to rise," Ed Picco, Nunavuts
newly appointed energy minister, gravely predicts.
Subsidies discourage
conservation
The economic cost of Nunavuts
oil habit could hardly be more understated. If generous government subsidies
didnt exist, it would probably be cheaper and a whole lot more
efficient to stoke home furnaces with wads of $20 bills.
CLICK
PHOTO TO ENLARGE
A
single windmill feeds a small amount of electricity into Rankin Inlets
power grid. Experts say wind farms are far more productive.
(FILE PHOTO)
|
Diesel power, many energy
critics point out, also entails costs for northern Canadians, particularly aboriginal
people, that cant be tallied strictly in money terms. Households, hamlets
and towns built to run on energy produced elsewhere must bend to forces beyond
their control, the very picture of a people sapped of self-reliance.
And then theres the
environment.
Burning diesel fuel contributes
to global warming by pumping carbon-dioxide, a "greenhouse gas," and a host
of other nasty pollutants into the Earths atmosphere. Canadas polar
eco-system is particularly sensitive to this pollution.
Not surprisingly, threat
of climate change alarms Inuit leaders, who have vociferously backed international
efforts such as the Kyoto Protocol, to curb greenhouse-gas emissions. The truth
is, however, that northerners today do not simply bear the environmental burden
of oil-thirsty industrialized states they also magnify it.
The federal government
calculates that energy use in Nunavut generates more than 500,000 tonnes of
carbon-dioxide pollution each year. And this in a territory that has yet to
embrace a single important industrial development since its creation in 1999.
In comparison, the Northwest
Territories, with a history of mining, produced more than a million tonnes of
greenhouse gases last year.
"Were not doing anything
for global warming or anything for environmental health by continuing this outmoded
way of providing energy," Picco says frankly. "We have to look at alternatives."
With Ottawa now pledging to cut Canadas total greenhouse-gas emissions,
there may never be a more urgent time to do this.
In theory, theres
no reason why all 26 Nunavut communities couldnt begin today to supply
at least some of their power from renewable sources close at hand.
The Ikuma II report specifically
calls for "a comprehensive effort ... to identify and develop hydro-power opportunities."
Manitobas provincially owned utility, Manitoba Hydro, has been working
with the Nunavut Power Corp. for over a year to study the cost of building hydro-electric
dams in the Kivalliq region and transporting electricity over power lines to
northern Manitoba.
"What we would hope to
do there," Picco says, "is not only supply the domestic markets in Nunavut,
but actually be a major exporter of hydro power to the South."
Give wind a chance?
Some analysts believe that
wind energy, a centuries-old source of mechanical power now converted to electricity
in many parts of the world, holds much promise in Nunavut, though it has been
slow to fire the imagination of public-utility managers.
Only a handful of wind-powered
turbines were ever built in the Arctic and they were largely dismissed by diesel
jockeys as whimsical toys.
One, at Kuujjuaq in Nunavik,
was recently dismantled by Hydro-Québec. Another, at Sachs Harbour, NWT,
broke a couple of years ago and hasnt been fixed. The lone turbine at
Rankin Inlet still whirls a trickle of current into the local grid, but is more
a science-fair novelty than a working machine.
Of course, whether or not
wind-power is suitable for the Arctic cant be gleaned from such half-hearted
experiments. "One turbine," quipped a bureaucrat in the territorial government,
"is not a wind farm. Its a turbine. Its like calling a tree a forest."
The case for renewable
alternative energy in Nunavut could be strengthened if authorities adopt a more
exact cost-accounting approach.
For instance, although
the Government of Nunavut pays for building and upgrading tank farms used to
store diesel, these depreciation costs dont show up when electricity rates
are set. These and other so-called "hidden subsidies" are believed to amount
to more than $10 million a year.
"Right now," says Peter
Scott, who helped draft the Ikuma II recommendations, "the cost to deliver power
in Iqaluit is 31¢ per kilowatt hour. If its determined that the true cost
is 40¢ a kilowatt hour, and we can put wind power in here for 35¢, or do hydro
for 22¢, then it makes a hell of a lot more sense.
"Once you know the true
cost, certainly it makes the alternatives much more attractive."
Mention of wind energy
in Nunavut is far less prone to elicit jeers these days. The Nunavut Power Corp.
recently invited proposals from companies willing and able to build real wind-energy
supply systems, clusters of modern turbines able to provide a large share of
communities electricity needs.
"There are dozens of thousands
of megawatts of wind power now being fed into the grid in various parts of the
world," according to Ron Alward, a senior energy advisor with Natural Resources
Canada.
Alward believes wind energy
could cut diesel use in the Arctic by up to 60 or 70 per cent provided
enough windmills are built. Contrary to popular belief, lack of constant wind
doesnt rule it out as a source of power. Modern control systems make it
possible to integrate wind energy with existing diesel power.
"You could take a community
like Rankin Inlet," Alward explains, "and if the wind is blowing, you could
have windmills there that provide 100 per cent of the power. When the winds
not blowing, diesel takes over completely. But in between, the diesel is cycling
on and off, or putting out less or more power depending on how much wind is
available.
"It would pay for itself,
probably in a period of 10 to 12 years."
Even if switching to water-
and wind-powered electricity proves feasible, energy planners will almost certainly
need to promote better energy-conservation practices if Nunavut is going to
cut down on fossil fuels. This is because electricity uses just 25 per cent
of the territorys energy supply; space and water heating drain most of
the rest.
"Can you build more energy-efficient
homes? Absolutely," says Aleta Fowler, a researcher with the Canada Mortgage
and Housing Corp. (CMHC) in Yellowknife. "But can we reasonably build the highest
quality, most energy-efficient homes? And the answer is, Well, where do
you look for the dollar trade-off?"
Triple-glazed windows,
for example, retain heat better than double-glazed windows, but they also drive
up construction costs. Builders rarely incorporate them because demand isnt
there; consumers, after all, dont pay the full cost of the energy they
use anyway. Why would they pay more to save oil?
Canadian-made solar air-heating
panels can slash oil costs for large public buildings, but the longer pay-back
period is thought to discourage politicians, who prefer spending on items that
they think will more readily help them get re-elected.
The department of public
works nevertheless installed a 75-square-metre section of gymnasium wall at
Allituq High School in Rankin Inlet last January at a cost of $77,000. Projected
annual savings: $10,000.
"There are people in the
[public] housing corporations who actually upgrade their designs virtually every
year, trying to find better ways to build more energy-efficient homes," Fowler
notes. "But the reality is that most of your energy dollars are being spent
in inefficient production of energy."
Power plants grossly
inefficient
Arctic electric plants
are grossly inefficient: two-thirds of the oil burned each year about
$12 million worth gets lost as heat. Authorities in Nunavut now favour
construction of "waste-heat recovery" systems, whereby heat energy from electric-power
stations is diverted into buildings. A few communities already practise this
type of conservation.
In Taloyoak, waste energy
is used to keep the hamlets fresh-water supply line from freezing. In
Sanikiluaq, the energy is used to heat a local school. And waste heat from Iqaluits
own power plant will be piped into a new regional hospital slated for construction
in the capital next year.
Fowler suspects that still
more energy and money could be saved if water were managed more
efficiently in the Arctic. Piped services are virtually non-existent in Nunavut
due to permafrost. Households rely on municipal trucks to deliver fresh water
and cart away sewage.
"They only last about seven
years before you need to invest in a new truck, and they take up an enormous
amount of the fuel thats brought into the tank farms every year," Fowler
points out. "So when youre talking about water and sewer, a lot of the
cost is in the very types of energy that you dont want to be using, which
is diesel fuel."
The CMHC estimates that
the true cost of delivering subsidized water and sewage services to Arctic households
is about 125 times more than in southern Canada.
One study pegged the cost
of water use in Repulse Bay at $11,000 a year per household. Which is why the
CMHC has begun promoting a new technology known as "onsite waste-water recovery,"
miniature treatment plants that reduce the need for trucked water and sewage
services.
"If you can free up money
that youre spending on utilities," Fowler says, "you can put it into home
improvement."
In Cape Dorset, municipal
officials have begun a detailed study of all the ways in which the community
currently uses energy and the costs associated with its supply. Housing authorities
are also planning a pilot project in which 17 households will reuse waste-water
treated onsite.
When finished, the community
will be able to use the data to compare the total real cost of using energy
stored in fossil fuels with the cost of alternatives. "There are so many options
out there right now," Fowler says, "but theyve got to be on a community-specific
basis, because communities differ so much."
|