Canadian governments are looking for ways to beat the heat as they become increasingly aware of the dangers climate change poses not just to the environment but to public health as well.
Health Canada is looking for a company to create an online course for health professionals to help them identify the signs of illnesses related to extreme heat events. The department's research has concluded that many regions of Canada will be hit with heat waves that are longer, hotter and more frequent in the coming years.
An artist's rendition depicts a green roof planned for Montreal's Palais des Congrés, to help counter a 'heat island' effect seen in cities.Palais des Congrés de Montreal"Heat's not something that we're used to dealing with in Canada. And there's going to be more and more presentations of this as we move forward," said Jim Frehs, manager of the climate change and health office of Health Canada.
"There's projections that we will see a doubling or tripling of extreme heat events by the end of the century. So we need to be prepared."
The office defines an extreme heat event as three consecutive days of 30-degree-plus temperatures.
Ottawa isn't alone in its concern. Provinces and municipalities are also acting to adapt to the new reality.
Quebec is motivated by statistics that show a significant uptick in deaths related to extreme heat.Quebec's climate change action plan was set in motion in 2007. The province created an integrated heat-warning system and it is using satellite technology to monitor its progress. The province plans to update the system this year.
"If you are not prepared, if you do nothing, [the increase in deaths] can be in the thousands," said Dr. Pierre Gosselin, head of research at Quebec's Public Health Institute.
The institute is also sponsoring dozens of greening projects across the province but mostly focused on the island of Montreal.
'Re-greening' urban areas
Cities are particularly at risk from extreme heat because of a phenomenon known as the Heat Island Effect. Simply put, cities tend to be several degrees hotter than the surrounding rural areas, because of all the black roofs, concrete and steel that absorb and retain heat.
To combat this effect, Montreal is "re-greening" urban areas. In some cases, that means tearing up parking lots to plant trees and build parks. In other cases, it is the creation of roof-top gardens. One of the signature projects is at the Palais de Congrés in Montreal's downtown.
"The goal with green roofs is to reduce the urban temperature to a much more normal temperature. To avoid smog effects as well as to create a healthier breathing space for people to live in," said Owen Rose, the project manager at the Palais' garden.
Heat waves and health
Extreme heat events can result in several heat-related illnesses, causing heat exhaustion, fainting, cramps or heat stroke.
A heat stroke, also called sun stroke, is a medical emergency — if you suspect heat stroke, dial 911. A victim suffering heat stroke will have a body temperature above 40 C, but they will have stopped sweating. Other symptoms include:
Throbbing headache.
Dizziness.
Confusion.
Nausea.
Red, hot and dry skin.
Precautions include: staying indoors in air-conditioned areas, avoiding direct sunlight, drinking lots of water, taking a cool bath or shower, limiting physical activity, avoiding alcohol, and checking for side effects of medication.
Cleantech generates 17 jobs for every $1 million spent on it, compared to just 5 for every $1 million we throw at an oil and gas industry that doesn't need it but will fight to its dying breath to preserve the government largesse shoring up its bottom line.
Cleantech even generates more jobs than that other favored son of Congressional earmarks, military spending, which yields only 11 jobs for every $1 million in subsidies.
Robert Pollin, an economist who studied the impact of green stimulus dollars for the Commerce Department, said clean energy gets a better payoff because kick-starting a new industry requires a lot of manpower.
"There's way more jobs in clean energy because essentially there's a lot more construction jobs, there's a lot more manufacturing jobs, there's a lot more transportation jobs," he said. "So it's really the process of building the new industry that makes it a good generator of jobs."
Published On Thu Jun 09 2011John SpearsBusiness Reporter
The Canadian Solar Industry Association is trying to raise $2 million from its members to mount a media campaign in Ontario, promoting the benefits of solar.
A message to members says the campaign is needed because “our industry has become threatened due to political rhetoric and a misunderstanding within the province of the value we have created.”
“It is now a critical time to speak out and clarify these misapprehensions,” says the letter from association president Elizabeth McDonald.
“This is not a political campaign but an information campaign – we must remain non-partisan,” it says. The letter names no political party.
But Ontario’s Conservative party leader Tim Hudak has taken dead aim at the energy policies of the current Liberal government, which have promoted solar energy and offered solar producers premium prices for their power.
An Ontario election is scheduled for Oct. 6.
Hudak has vowed to cancel the province’s feed-in tariff rates, which pay solar producers prices ranging from 44.3 cents to 80.2 cents a kilowatt hour for electricity. To qualify, power developers must source a large portion of their equipment in Ontario.
Hudak also says he’ll cancel the province’s agreement with the South Korean firm Samsung, which includes a big commitment to manufacture solar equipment and develop solar power.
In an interview, McDonald said solar needs to concentrate on two key demographic segments.
“The first one is women 25 to 65, who are very, very supportive of renewable energy and the environmental impact, but know very little.”
“The second would be men over 35 who are very concerned about money, but don’t understand actually how things work, etcetera,” she said.
“We felt that if there was going to be a lot of discussion about the impact of solar, about what solar costs, what jobs have been created, that we should be the ones who are telling the story.”
The association wants its members to work locally, pointing out jobs that are being created by firms in their communities, McDonald said.
Polling done for the association has disclosed broad support for renewable energy, but little detailed understanding of the benefits, including the jobs being created, she said:
“There’s so much going on, it’s about time everybody understood.”
If CanSIA succeeds in raising the $2 million from its members, about 75 per cent would be spent on “media buys – mostly television,” McDonald’s letter says.
“This is predicated on a campaign that will have a real, material and measurable effect on public and political opinion.”
Several companies have already offered up to $50,000 each toward the cost of the campaign, the letter says.
BERN, Switzerland -- Swiss lawmakers approved a proposal Wednesday to phase out the use of nuclear power, a move spurred by election-year politics and growing skepticism over the use of atomic energy.
A majority of parliamentarians in Switzerland's lower house voted in favor of a gradual plan to shut down the country's five nuclear reactors by 2034.
The ballot passed the National Council with 101 votes in favor, 54 against and 36 abstentions. It had the support of all parties except the pro-business Liberal Democrats and the nationalist Swiss People's Party.
Switzerland's nuclear plants currently generate almost 40 percent of the country's energy. Hydropower supplies most of the rest.
Opponents had warned that abandoning nuclear power would require a massive increase in conventional and alternative energy generation, raise electricity costs for consumers, endanger Switzerland's efforts to reduce carbon emissions, and make the country more dependent on foreign suppliers of natural gas.
Switzerland's upper house, the Council of States, must also approve the plan, then the government will have to submit a detailed proposal on exiting nuclear power to parliament. The Cabinet is already in favor of decommissioning the country's reactors between 2019 and 2034, after they reach an average lifespan of 50 years.
Efforts to abandon nuclear power in Switzerland were boosted following the disaster at Japan's Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant, which was partially destroyed by a March 11 earthquake and tsunami.
Although Switzerland's reactor are considered safe and the country isn't prone to large natural disasters, opinion polls showed most Swiss favored shutting down the nuclear plants. The issue threatened to dominate the political debate ahead of parliamentary elections on Oct. 23.
Last month, demonstrators held the biggest anti-nuclear protest in Switzerland in 25 years.
"Be constructive. We can do this," Energy Minister Doris Leuthard told lawmakers after the vote Wednesday.
Suggestions for increasing power in Switzerland include buying more natural gas and developing more water, sun and wind energy resources, plus geothermal and other small-scale power generating efforts.
Leuthard noted that many small infrastructure projects in Switzerland are blocked at the local level. The country's unique system of popular democracy makes it easy for voters to stop wind farms and other alternative power plants being built in their own backyard.
On Monday, Switzerland's northern neighbor Germany approved abolishing nuclear power by the end of 2022. The law now goes to both houses of the German parliament, which are expected to vote on the plans within a month.
Germany has 17 nuclear power plants but shut down eight of the oldest ones for good after the Fukushima disaster.
Chancellor Angela Merkel arrived in the United States yesterday to be presented with the Presidential Medal of Freedom, coming shortly after her announcement that Germany plans to phase out nuclear energy by 2022 and accelerate the transition to a clean energy system largely built on renewable energy and energy efficiency. Jennifer Morgan analyzes the steps the country is taking to move to a low-carbon, non-nuclear future.
Chancellor Merkel’s announcement last week that her conservative government planned to accelerate the phase-out of nuclear power seemed to catch many around the world by surprise and create a fair amount of skepticism. Some painted it as a “panicked overreaction” and a “knee-jerk reaction” to the nuclear meltdown in Japan.
With the focus on the nuclear phase-out, there has been less attention paid to the fact that Germany’s new energy plan is also an accelerated phase-in of renewable energy and energy efficiency. It is wise to take a closer look at the decision to understand how the world’s fourth largest economy plans to succeed with this new energy plan while at the same time sticking to its ambitious climate change goals and laws.
Far from a short-sighted political reaction to the nuclear crisis, Germany has put in place the laws, infrastructure and has the public support to make this transition happen.
The Roots of Germany’s Energy Transition
Yesterday, Merkel’s Cabinet agreed on a package of energy laws to implement the Chancellor’s announcements, and sent the package to the Parliament for a vote by the 8th of July. After some negotiation, the governors of Germany’s sixteen states unanimously approved the package last Friday. Given that the governors represent a broad consensus of all political parties, it is likely that the proposed acts will move quickly through the parliament and be implemented. The Cabinet decision also stresses that Germany remains committed to its ambitious climate change targets of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 40% in 2020, compared to 1990 levels.
The latest decision by Chancellor Merkel’s government builds on a transition that had already been agreed upon in principle and was well underway over the previous years.
The German decision should be viewed in the context of an energy transition that began two decades ago. The first version of Germany’s feed-in law to encourage renewable electricity generation entered into force in 1991 and was expanded into a more comprehensive Renewable Energy Act in 2000. The initial decision to phase out nuclear power was taken in 2000 by the then Social Democrat/Green Party governing coalition. Last autumn, the new conservative government decided to continue with the phase-out, but modified the schedule in order to extend the lifetime of nuclear plants. The latest decision by Chancellor Merkel’s government accelerates the timeline for phase-out again, and builds on a transition that had already been agreed upon in principle and was well underway over the previous years.
Studying the Feasibility and Setting Ambitious Goals
Over the last two decades, there has been significant study and discussion in Germany about how to achieve such a transition and just how achievable its ambitious energy transition goals are. In the last year alone, a number of studies considered scenarios for Germany’s energy future:
A detailed scenario developed by Germany’s Federal Environment Agency found that a 100 percent renewable energy system by 2050 was technically feasible and outlined the necessary steps to create this energy system. In a report released last week, the Agency also found that a nuclear phase-out by 2017, even faster than the current government plans, would be feasible without negative climate impacts.
An expert advisory panel to the German government, the German Advisory Council on the Environment, also studied “Pathways to a 100% Renewable Electricity System”. According to the different scenarios analyzed, that goal would be reached by 2050, while in 2020 renewables would already account for around 50 percent of electricity consumption. The Advisory Council also looked at the environmental, economic and energy security impacts of a fully renewable energy system and characterized it as “climate-friendly, reliable, [and] affordable”.
A number of leading academic research institutes as well as NGOs have also been assessinglong-term and short-term energy and climate scenarios that phase out nuclear power soon, while meeting ambitious climate change goals.
The German government also commissioned feasibility studies when it prepared for a new long-term energy concept in the fall of 2010. After the accidents in Japan, the government asked a high-level panel of independent experts, chaired by Klaus Toepfer, former head of the United Nations Environment Program, to assess the ethics of energy technology choices. In its final report, the commission made recommendation for Germany’s energy situation post-Fukushima and recommended to focus on the transition to renewable energy sources, while phasing out nuclear energy by 2021.
Against this background of detailed feasibility studies for different energy futures, the German government approved an energy concept in the fall of 2010. It set Germany on the track to achieve 40 percent greenhouse gas reductions and a share of 35 percent renewable energy by 2020 and 80 percent greenhouse gas reductions with 80 percent renewable energy in 2050. The accelerated nuclear phase-out modifies this energy concept, but keeps these targets intact.
Smart Energy Policy, Smart Economic Policy
Germany’s decision to phase out what it sees as a less-desirable technology, while continuing to tackle climate change, can provide important lessons for other countries. Due to the success of renewable energy and energy efficiency in the country, it is in a strong position to choose this pathway. Germany has almosttripled its share of renewables in its final energy consumption from 3.8 percent in 2000 to 11 percent in 2010. Renewables have even been growing faster than most studies predicted in the past.
A recent IPCC report finds that by 2050, nearly 80 percent of the world’s energy could come from renewable sources. This is not science fiction, but smart energy and climate policy that also creates jobs, exports and economic growth.
A Global Shift Towards Clean Energy
Germany is not the only country making these kinds of decisions. The government of Japan, still reeling from the tsunami and nuclear disasters, has signaled that it plans to increase its share of renewable energy. The United Kingdom recently announced a 50% GHG reduction target by 2025. China as well has been developing impressive renewable energy and efficiency targets and policies. The decisions to shift to clean energy in these cases emerges in part from a desire to move from what is understood by society to be more risky energy sources, be they nuclear, coal, or oil, towards new possibilities in renewable energy instead.
Countries that are either skeptical of the effectiveness of renewable energy and efficiency to meet energy needs – and thus are doing little to move in this direction – or are planning large-scale investments in new energy sources may learn from these examples.
The meltdown at Japan’s Fukushima power station unleashed a wave that threatens to swamp the nuclear industry’s much-hyped global renaissance, although many governments insist nuclear remains a favoured option as they face hard choices over future energy supply.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel jolted the nuclear industry on the weekend with her announcement that Europe’s industrial powerhouse will close all 17 of its nuclear reactors by 2022, pulling the plug on a technology that until recently supplied Germany with 23 per cent of its power.
The announcement is bound to send further shock waves through an industry grappling with the consequences of the Fukushima disaster. It will certainly cause casualties – both directly as some governments back away from their nuclear ambitions, and indirectly, by forcing the industry to improve its safety technology, further raising the already daunting price of new reactors.
Should governments move away from nuclear energy on a large scale, it’s not clear how they will make up for the loss in capacity without relying more heavily on fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas, which experts warn are key contributors to an impending climate catastrophe.
Environmentalists are urging consumers to be more efficient in the way they use energy, while calling for heavy investment in renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. But as potentially devastating as they are, governments, industry and utility planners for the most part remain more comfortable with the risks posed by nuclear power than the uncertainties of relying on an entirely re-engineered system.
In short, the nuclear era is far from over. But the fact remains that the crisis at the Japanese plants has reawakened fears that had dissipated in the years since the Chernobyl disaster in the former Soviet Union.
Indeed, the nuclear industry has lately insisted that there is a renaissance in interest in its product. The key to that resurgence lies not in Germany but elsewhere, in nuclear-dependent France and Sweden, and in the United States, China, India and South Korea – all of which are pursuing ambitious nuclear construction programs. Southeast Asia and the Middle East, where governments in emerging economies like Malaysia and Turkey have embraced nuclear energy, are also key to the industry’s future.
In Canada, Ontario remains committed to a policy that has resulted in nuclear plants supplying 50 per cent of the province’s energy, compared with 15 per cent in the country as a whole. Both the governing Liberals and opposition Progressive Conservatives endorse a plan to build two new reactors and refurbish aging ones. Quebec – which is blessed with abundant hydro power – is meanwhile backtracking on a plan to retool its Candu reactor at the Gentilly-2 plant.
Has Germany Set a Precedent Other Countries Will Follow?
Ms. Merkel’s announcement was, in fact, a reversal of a decision made only a year ago to extend Germany’s nuclear era. Under the influence of a popular Green Party, Germany had planned to shut down its reactors, but Ms. Merkel passed legislation just last year to allow utilities to extend the life of existing plants.
In the wake of the Fukushima disaster, her weekend decision essentially reverts to a previous plan to shutter the country’s reactors by 2022. Industry experts do not expect other governments to follow suit, noting that the German government is known for its ambivalent attitude toward nuclear energy. Said Greg Barnes, an industry analyst with TD Securities Inc.: “Germany has long been regarded as ‘weak’ on nuclear power and was not expected to be a significant factor in reactor growth over the medium to longer term.”
Hans Blix, former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said he is sticking to his view that the Fukushima disaster will prove to be a “bump in the road, but not the end of the road” for nuclear power around the world.
But Germany’s about-face nonetheless illustrates the new level of caution with which governments are approaching nuclear power. Reporting last weekend, a government-appointed German commission urged the total withdrawal from nuclear energy, saying Fukushima “demonstrates the limitations of human disaster-preparedness and emergency measures.” It said risk levels are unacceptable given the existence of other, safer alternatives.
And while other governments may want to proceed with plans for new reactors, citizens may make their own risk assessment and throw up roadblocks when utilities look for regulatory approval.
At the very least, the Japanese disaster will force the industry to increase its level of safety, forcing costly design changes. “As the industry was attempting to put the renaissance into practice, you were seeing the cost estimates just going up and up and up,” said Mark Winfield, a professor of energy and environment at York University.
“So the renaissance was already in some difficulty before this happened, but this is clearly taking it to a new level.”
How is the Global Nuclear Industry Responding to Fukushima?
Though no one in the industry wants to publicly blame Tokyo Electric Power Co., which owns Fukushima, they will point out that the plant was 40 years old and was not built to withstand the devastating combination of massive earthquake and giant tsunami that overwhelmed its emergency systems. Ontario Power Generation chief executive Tom Mitchell is chairing a committee of the World Association of Nuclear Operators to examine the Fukushima accident and offer recommendations to the industry.
Around the world, regulators have ordered operators to reassess their safety systems. In the United States, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission found that nearly a third of the country’s 104 nuclear plants are ill-prepared to meet serious and simultaneous emergencies.
In a report to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission filed last Friday, Ontario Power Generation, the provincially owned utility, said there were “no significant safety issues requiring immediate corrective or compensatory measures” at its Darlington and Pickering stations east of Toronto. But it added it would reduce the risk of fire by speeding up the installation of equipment needed to vent hydrogen, the buildup of which caused explosions that were a significant factor in the disaster at Fukushima. OPG will also review the way it stores contaminated fuel rods to lessen the risk should fire break out.
Industry officials point out that new reactors have safety features that did not exist at Fukushima, including cooling systems that rely on gravity rather than an outside power source, the failure of which was another critical factor in the accident at the Japanese plant.
What Impact Would Nuclear’s Decline Have on Climate Change?
Most government and industry experts have concluded that nuclear energy is a critical component of the effort to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and limit the impact of climate change. In its scenario for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 50 per cent by 2050, the International Energy Agency says nuclear’s share of the global power supply would have to grow to 24 per cent from 14 per cent currently to achieve that goal.
Some environmentalists are willing to accept that nuclear power should play a significant role in mitigating the effects of global warming, but most still oppose it, citing concerns about safety, waste management and weapons proliferation.
Graham Saul, executive director of Climate Action Network Canada, noted that nuclear energy would not be commercially viable if the industry were required to cover its liabilities. Like most industrialized countries, Canada has legislation that caps liabilities in the event of accident.
Can Renewables Replace Nuclear?
Germany’s move to shutter its nuclear plants is a vote of confidence in the renewable energy industry, which is generally seen by governments and industry as incapable of providing a base load of reliable and affordable power.
“You see a lot of naysayers out there saying its too expensive and it can’t be done. But now you are seeing a country saying it can be done,” said Kent Brown, chief executive officer of BluEarth Renewables Inc., a Calgary-based startup that is investing in wind and other green power projects. “This is an example of a developed country with a commitment to renewables.”
Germany plans to cut its power consumption and rely more heavily on offshore wind, as well as solar, and is confident that it can make the transition over a reasonable period of time. It says it will sharply increase the amount of renewable energy in its portfolio from the current 17 per cent, while cutting power consumption by 10 per cent through conservation measures.
In Ontario, where most of Canada’s nuclear plants are located, it would actually be easier to shift to renewables than in Germany, said Tim Weis, director of renewable energy and efficiency policy at the Pembina Institute, a Calgary-based environmental think tank. That’s because Ontario has fewer consumers than Germany and more reliable renewable-energy resources – mainly wind and sunlight.
But critics say renewables remain too unreliable and expensive to provide secure, base-load power – and will remain so until major technological advances are made that allow energy from inconsistent sources to be economically stored and recovered.
Andres Carlgren, Sweden’s Environment Minister, criticized the German plan as “unrealistic.” All it means, he said, is that Germany will now have to rely more heavily on coal and on imports of nuclear-generated electricity from France.
An artist's rendition depicts a green roof planned for Montreal's Palais des Congrés, to help counter a 'heat island' effect seen in cities. Palais des Congrés de Montreal
