Hypocrisy at the heart of Alberta’s renewables moratorium
By Lethbridge Herald on August 23, 2023.
Bill Whitelaw
Geologic Systems
lberta’s recent moratorium on renewables offers plenty of threads to tug.
Let’s pull on the hypocrisy thread first. It’s one of the biggest in this bewildering tapestry we call energy politics. And hypocrisy that is now seemingly normalized is why many Canadians despise politics and politicians.
We live in fascinatingly complex times when it comes to the funny world of values and energy. It’s a world that is more polarized by ill-informed ideology at both poles than it is by solid science and constructive appreciation of the facts at the centre.
But one essential reality is this: it’s increasingly a world in which molecules and megawatts are caught up in an awkward waltz as hydrocarbons meet the pressures of decarbonizing electricity grids in jurisdictions like Alberta.
As a result, the world is waking up to the reality that all forms of energy come with various price tags. All systems and sources are negatively consequential in one way or another, and, too often, those consequences become the focal point for negative ideological debate.
In Canada, this is compounded by the unenviable reality that most energy-entitled Canucks do not possess much in the way of energy smarts. We’re part of a socio-political system that takes energy, its security and stability of supply, as a birthright. So, by way of that entitlement, we think we know a lot when, in fact, we know very little, given the stakes. This ignorance gives politicians on both the left and right freedom to free-form rhetoric from perspectives rooted in ideological frames that don’t lend themselves to effective collaboration and consensus building.
But here’s another known: as energy systems (and solutions to some of the problems each system presents) evolve, one factor seems consistent: the need for investors to see some form of policy and regulatory certainty from various government actors. Investors will park their capital where it will do the most (predictable) good. They detest governments that squabble among themselves and seek places of equilibrium. Such equilibriums of certainty can only come from positions grounded in common sense and firmly in the middle, not at the fringes.
So back to hypocrisy: the Alberta government has long challenged the federal government to provide investor clarity and certainty for the legacy oil and gas sector on a broad range of issues, including tax incentives for a nascent carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) sector and its commitment to helping decarbonize a healthy oil and gas sector.
But the real issue here is about electricity grids and who gets to control what counts for a decarbonizing grid, including time frames between 2035 and 2050, and what forms of energy (natural gas included) will contribute to how the grid moves steadily toward emissions reduction.
Here’s a tweet from Alberta Premier Danielle Smith back in June:
“I was disappointed to read comments federal Environment and Climate Change Minister Steven Guilbeault made to a reporter about his intention to see the federal government impose a net-zero electricity mandate on all provinces for 2035 and that he continued to reference Ottawa’s planned de facto oil and gas production cut. Not only are the contemplated federal targets unconstitutional, they create investor uncertainty and are extremely harmful to the Alberta and Canadian economies.”
The core debate here is not the range of arguments Alberta Minister of Affordability and Utilities Nathan Neudorf, who announced the surprise ban, insists are central to the moratorium. Alberta’s concerns about the growing renewables sector are fair enough. As energy systems go, the renewables sector is relatively new and has several dimensions that require analysis and exploration – notwithstanding rapid growth in recent years.
But pulling the carpet out from the sector’s footing through a moratorium is not the way to go. It caught the stakeholders off-guard, and because there is such a thing as the law of unintended consequences, we’re already seeing alarm from investors and project proponents who are legitimately puzzled by a decision that came out of the blue, with little or no apparent consultation.
Indeed, had the Alberta government announced an innovative consultation process designed to work with a sector already well in motion, such a move would have cemented investor confidence and potentially attracted even more dollars to the province.
Hence the hypocrisy: the United Conservative Party has created the very type of policy and regulatory uncertainty they claim to eschew and abhor. Executives from companies as diverse as Labatt, Amazon and Microsoft – all of which have turned to Alberta renewables – must be hastily convening board meetings. But this is about politics, however petty and sophomoric.
From the premier’s same tweet:
“Instead of seeking ways to sow investor uncertainty and reduce support for Canadian energy globally, the federal government should focus on partnering with Alberta and investing in our national energy sector to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 while simultaneously increasing energy production, jobs and economic growth for Canadians.”
In hindsight, energy sector watchers should have seen the moratorium coming from a mile away.
It is clearly less about working with the renewables sector than sticking the sector inside a political gauntlet tossed Ottawa’s way in terms of who gets to say and do what about the grid.
But it is hard to negotiate from a position of strength when you have devolved as a jurisdiction to the same hypocritical low-road status of which you consistently accuse your federal “partner” of travelling.
Here’s a rationale and reasoned view from the trenches. It was written by Trevor Lewington, CEO of Lethbridge’s economic development authority. Lethbridge, as a municipality and as the regional node of southwestern Alberta, stands to suffer immensely from the renewables moratorium. It will be a case study in unintended consequences.
“Alberta is a leader in traditional energy. We have the natural resources and talent the world needs. Oil production in Alberta reached an all-time high in the first five months of the year at +6.5 percent compared to the pre-pandemic peak. Natural gas production year-to-date has also expanded +1.2 percent compared to last year. The International Energy Agency is forecasting an increase in global demand for both oil and natural gas through 2028.
Alberta is a leader in renewable energy. International investment is attracted by the opportunity to decarbonize operations through wind, solar and geothermal markets in our province. Renewable power generation, including hydro, provided 17 percent of Alberta’s net-to-grid generation, up from 10 percent in 2018.
All forms of energy create potential benefits from capital investment, labour income, property taxes and other contributions.
All forms of energy generation have potential negative impacts on land use, wildlife and communities. All energy projects should have strenuous obligations for remediation at the end of the project life as well as performance bonds like financial commitments to ensure performance. Alberta’s legacy of abandoned oil and gas wells is a lesson that should be forefront of our minds.
Alberta’s power system is undergoing the biggest transformation in its 100-plus-year history. Coal-fired electricity generation, a key source of power in the province for more than a century, is on track to be eliminated as a fuel source for electricity by the end of 2023.
Regulatory changes are required to ensure competition, provide reliable and diverse sources of generation as well as build transmission and distribution infrastructure ready for technologies like grid scale battery storage.
Politicians from all ends of the spectrum should be preparing Alberta for the continuing transformation of the global energy sector. We need to build on our existing strengths. That means both traditional and renewable energy. Why not have total world domination in both?
We need to ensure proper protection of agricultural lands and (respect) municipal land use planning by all actors in the energy sector. Quasi-judicial bodies like the AUC should not be able to overrule municipal decisions without considerable process and justification.
We also need to respect market mechanisms and give landowners the ability to maximize what the free market will provide. Investment in any sector requires a consistent and predictable regulatory environment. Continuous improvement is a good thing. We all reserve the right to get smarter. Sudden changes without consultation are not good for anyone.”
If I were an investor, I would be heartened to read such perspectives. I would be happy to park my money in a jurisdiction that thinks with such clarity.
Perhaps Lewington should run for premier. His is a refreshing perspective that grounds energy discourse and dialogue in the right way – all common sense and no polarizing ideology. He gets that the stakes are that high.
These are critically important times in our national energy debate. Canadians should be engaged and enthusiastic about participating in decisions critical to their future.
They should be joining politicians on the pathways toward that future.
But ideologically driven hypocrisy is no way to lead a conversation so critical to our future – one in which there are no dollars to pay for the investment foundation on which that future is built.
Bill Whitelaw is the Managing Director of Strategy & Sustainability with Geologic Systems. The opinions expressed by our columnists and contributors are theirs alone and do not inherently or expressly reflect the views of our publication.
© Troy Media
39-38
Two things you left out Bill:
a) Most investors are on the parasite train.
b) the mining impacts of producing batteries, solar panels and wind towers.
You appear to be a geologist so in a fair and balanced piece these should have been included. You can start with the 5000.00 per vehicle subsidy for electric vehicle and your conjecture on what to do with these 1 ton batteries at their end of life cycle. Any info would help.
The opposing opinion based on some statistical evidence
How many hectares of farmland does it take to generate 1 Mega Watt of Solar or 1 Mega Watt of Wind? Don’t use the rating of the windmill use the speed of wind in the area and the expected generation under 90% of the circumstances for that area.
Now calculate the number of hectares it takes to generate 1 Mega Watt with a Molten Salt small reactor?
Alberta has issued its first contract to develop a Reactor. These reactors can be the size of a 40 foot container and be placed in communities that presently use Diesel 24/7/365. The reactor uses salt as its control. Basically the Uranium is made into balls about the size of a baseball and coated with graphite. They sit in a hopper like unit and the voids are filled with salt. As the reactor heats up the salt becomes molten. The molten salt is circulated in the heater output pipes and back to the reactor. If the reactor attempts to “run a way” then the molten salt gets so hot that it releases ions that collide with the Uranium Ions slowing the chain reaction and the Nuc cools. It is literally self regulating.
When the Uranium balls start to degrade, you unplug the container and replace it with a refurbished container reactor.
So, what would you prefer farm land for crops to feed you and your children or a field of solar panels. A calculation was made, I cannot find it at the moment but if you wanted to power Alberta with solar you would need an array from the southern border with Montana all the way up to Brooks.
I do not disagree with this moratorium if what the UCP is doing is considering the implications of Nuclear. Because if we go Nuclear, there is no reason to proceed with Solar or Windpower, we have enough already.
Hey, big spender. Have you looked at the price tag of nuclear power?
Actually yes I have. Per megawatt longterm it is cheaper than both Solar and Windmills. The replacement cycle on a Windmill is 15 years after producing less than 30% of its posted production. The life cycle of solar panels starts to deteriorate literally within a year of installation and has a life cycle of 25-30 years.
The life cycle of SNR is for as long as you have depleted uranium and we have countless bunkers full of the stuff. So you clean up the planets depleted uranium at the sametime you are producing power.
So yes, I have studied it in detail and nuclear power wins hands down.
Wrong.
ipcc_wg3_ar5_annex-iii.pdf
Better brush up on Small Nucs. The ones described as being more costly are the Small Nuc technology scaled to produce much larger power. China is building 52 of these units and are hundreds of times larger than what the purpose of a SNR is.
So no, you are wrong because you are quoting an incorrect source. You could have 3-4 small nucs power Fort Mac refineries, remove their load from the grid making our grid more sustainable, but thanks for your uninformed report.
Secondly you are now replacing primary stationary power with primary stationary power. As opposed to secondary power that cannot be used for primary power.
“When the Uranium balls start to degrade, you unplug the container and replace it with a refurbished container reactor.”
Does not the disposal of expended fuel from molten salt reactors remain a significant concern?
https://cela.ca/cela-gives-canadas-radioactive-waste-and-decommissioning-policy-a-failing-grade/
No IMO, you are using spent fuel rods as the U308 source. So present nucs produce a spent fuel rod problem. That problem remains under heavy water unless like Fukishima and the pool is destroyed.
The new nucs can use various fuels but most importantly the “spent rods” from Candu reactors that are sitting in heavy water pools are 5% U308. The new Small Nuclear reactors can use the 5% rods, make them into balls coat them in graphite, and deplete them further to 1% which is safe for storage in 45 gallon drums. During the 1950-60-70s while working on Salt technology they were using what the Candu’s use so produced their own waste. Now they do not because they perfected the technology.
Never heard nuclear mentioned once by Neudorf. I see no reason why a) nuclear is not a viable option and b) why the moratorium was initiated other than the bleeding’ obvious and c) all of the renewables should be considered for a zero emissions future.
Mr. Whitelaw has presented an op-ed grounded in a refusal to participate in polarizing ideology.
Critical thinking and analysis is sadly absent in much of what parades as political discourse currently, in this province and elsewhere.
It would seem to me that a moratorium is a logical step when dealing with an unprecedented volume of renewable proposals. There needs to be regulation of factors that should be considered ,some which should include , the loss of valuable farmland, end of life highly toxic disposal of solar panels, addressing the reliability issues, total capacity vs operating efficiencies of renewable energy and storage costs . Connection costs to grid, and who pays.
The angst over a six month pause is overdone, considering that proposals will continue to be evaluated during this period while Alberta remains one of the world’s sunniest and windiest location. Other forms of energy sources should also be given serious consideration . Small modular nuclear power seems promising.
Are you sure about that?
Considering that the Premier just announced needing to increase Nat Gas production and use to prop up the straining grid?
I smell a big fat UCP rat.