Zerofootprint Energy = No More Nukes in Ontario?
by Michael Graham Richard, Gatineau, Canada on 03.14.06
Zerofootprint is a great organization. They are a not-for-profit whose stated goal is to "connect people who care about the environment for the purpose of reducing ecological footprint." Part of their operations is Zerofootprint Energy, an energy service company. It was recently featured in the Toronto Star in an article about alternatives to building new nuclear power plants in Ontario (Canada). Cameron Smith, the author of the piece, argues that the future of energy does not lie with the "centralized bigness" of nuclear plants (which he briefly compares to the "inflexible, inefficient and vulnerable" central planning of the Soviets 50 years ago), but with decentralized renewable energy production and efficiency/conservation. That's where Zerofootprint Energy comes in.
From the Toronto Star:
the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) is recommending to solve Ontario's electricity woes: centralized power generation, where half of the province's electricity will come from massive, inflexible, breathtakingly expensive nuclear plants, with a history of breakdowns and cost overruns. [...]It argues that nuclear power is needed for security of supply. But it's not listening to people involved with renewable energy who say the opposite: that there's no security in centralized bigness because when something breaks, there's an immediate crisis. Moreover, the enormous cost of nuclear plants will financially starve other services in the province. [...]
In Ontario, I wouldn't be surprised if ground-source heating and cooling could eliminate the need for an entire nuclear plant, simply by cutting electricity demand for air conditioners, electric hot water tanks and electric baseboard heaters.
The problem is that high costs and long payback periods are barriers to installations. [...]
[A] new firm installs ground-source heating and cooling [geothermal heat-pumps] in newly constructed buildings at no extra cost to builders above what they would otherwise pay for conventional systems. In return, purchasers of the buildings agree to pay Zerofootprint a monthly charge that's slightly below what they would pay for oil or natural gas at the time of purchase.
Payments don't increase, electricity bills are lower and property owners are protected against rising fuel prices. Once the installation costs are recovered, heating and cooling bills drop dramatically. It's a model that could be modified for retrofitting existing buildings. [...]
So, Zerofootprint is showing it's possible to reduce electricity demand significantly at no cost to the government or to property owners. It underscores the need for Ontario to take time to look much more seriously at renewables.
You might also want to check out Zerofootprint's Green Events Calendar. It covers events from around the globe. Maybe some cool eco-event is happening near you?
::Zerofootprint, ::Zerofootprint Energy
Other articles from Treehugger on similar topics: ::Efficiency Works Forever, ::What Is A Kilowatt-Hour Anyway?, ::Cut Your Gas Consumption in Half in One Day, ::Geothermal Energy Can Be Sexy, ::Her Majesty goes Geothermal at Buck House
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Ramsar Wetland Convention Meeting in Korea: Protecting Rice Paddies
- Become an Un-Consumer, Join The Compact, Save Money, Reduce Your Eco-Footprint
- OpenEco.org Expands Tools for Detailed Carbon Tracking
- Kokuyo Reduces Power Consumption by 28%, Introduces "Eco Live Office"
One thing that would get rid of this huge demand for energy is to get people to use energy saving light bulbs. its a simple solution that woudl have huge effects. Africa even handed out thousands of them for free to cut the power usage so they dont have to build more plants. More cost effective then building a power plant.
You're right, Pete. In fact, we wrote about that very thing recently:
Here and here.
Cameron Smith makes an excellent point about how large centralized nuclear reactors were a product of the Soviet mentality of centralization of all things. It bears saying that the West had the same notion about nuclear power plants. Unfortunately, no responsible dialogue about the potential role of nuclear power can occur without recognizing that any plant operating in the west today is nothing more than a gussied up 1950's era atomic fission reactor. The state of the art in nuclear power involves very small (the size of a house), mass produced, meltdown proof (pebble bed) reactors which are designed to be peppered about the power grid. I won't blow up TH with a dissertation, and anyone interested can search Wikipedia for 'Pebble Bed' to learn more. The point is, while is valid to be critical of 1950's era designs, there are people moving foward with 21st century alternatives that look like a Volvo compared to an Edsel when placed beside what most people think of a nuclear power plant.
And if the very words don't sent most people into hysterical laughter, 'cold fusion' is starting to look very promising again.
This article (and many more like it - here and elsewhere) make two key mistakes:
(a) only consider generation in the absence of a means of distribution
(b) fail to take into account the reality of the load curve (in Ontario or elsewhere)
One thing that would be useful would be to talk in detail with a power system engineer. I've done that and modified some of my views rather radically. What is being proposed may be possible in 20 years, but for right now, we need to build power generation where we have the distribution system to support it and work very hard on the culture change that is necessary both in the general population and specifically within the power industry to make the two point s: that decentralization is the better option to take in the market driven / heterogeneous world of today and the near future, and that load management is the only way to eliminate the issues associated with the evening spike in power usage.
For real and only marginally biased information, have a look at the system operator's site: http://www.ieso.ca
Andrew,
I liked your comments about the pebble bed reactors. Here is a link to an article from Wired:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/china.html