Oil companies

The oil companies have the job to do-extracting oil and natural gas from the earth, refining it, and distributing it to customers. Theirs is an extremely complex business. It requires massive amounts of capital to drill wells, develop the oil sands, build refineries, and create a distribution network. These companies have to plan decades in advance, and they really have very little control over the price of their product. While I sometimes wonder how they determine prices in the retail end of the business, I think we all have to recognize that the price of crude oil and natural gas is one of the purest examples of market pricing, supply and demand.
Like any corporation, they have a legal responsibility to create the most value for their shareholders, as long as they operate within the law. If they are behaving in a way we feel is inappropriate, it is our responsibility as citizens to lobby our politicians for changes in legislation.
Nowadays some of the major oil companies are transforming themselves into more broadly based energy companies by developing and supporting renewable energy. This is one of the benefits of the large profits that oil companies have been making lately; they have the deep pockets to invest in new technology that is not yet profitable.

Nuclear power

I am a physicist by training, in fact the University where I did my master's degree has a nuclear reactor on campus. I am not afraid of nuclear technology if it is executed properly, and I think in most Western countries it is quite safe. The issue of nuclear waste is not one that has been satisfactorily resolved yet; however the amount of waste is a relatively small. And the immediate environmental impact from an operating nuclear plant is small-no carbon dioxide emissions. Do I think it would be preferable not to have to use nuclear power? Yes, nuclear plants are expensive, complex, and at least in the past seem prone to break down. But given our current energy predicament I see no way around the use of nuclear power unless we are prepared to hugely curtail our use of electricity.

Coal

Coal is one of the least desirable fuels for electricity generation. It can be dirty, and it generally produces a lot of carbon dioxide. Having said that, there has been significant progress in clean coal technology. In Ontario, our Premier made an election promise to eliminate electricity generation from coal fired plants. The problem is that some of the coal plants in Ontario are some of the cleanest in North America. If we close them down, and need to import electricity from the United States, we will likely be importing "dirtier" electricity than if we had generated it ourselves. I think the situation with coal plants in Ontario is an example of succumbing to the simple, easy to understand decision which may or may not be the best solution.

Wind

Wind energy seems pretty good. When I was in Denmark a couple of years ago, and Portugal before that, there were wind turbines everywhere. Their effects on the environment seem to be largely benign. Of course the wind does not always blow; in southern Ontario we use a lot of electricity for air-conditioning in the heat of the summer, a time when the winds tend to be light (I know, I'm a sailor!) Since electricity is currently extremely difficult to store, it is unlikely we will ever generate the majority of our electricity from wind power. Although the turbines look big and powerful, it takes a lot of them to generate a significant amount of electricity; we need a lot more of them to generate significant amounts of electricity. If we look at Germany for example in 2000, there were approximately 10,000 wind facilities in Germany; still they accounted for only 3 % of the country's energy supply. Having said that, I am all for expanding the use of wind power since it is relatively easy to do on an incremental basis and it appears to be cost competitive with other technologies.

Solar for heating

We already use solar energy to partially heat our house - when the sun shines, I open the blinds and at night I close the blinds. If you are building a new house, investigate passive solar construction. Solar heating for water reduces the need for electricity and natural gas. Simple, inexpensive solar hot air collectors can be easily retrofitted to houses and I expect we will see much more of this in the future.

Solar for electricity generation

Solar photovoltaic generation is about as clean a technology as you can get. The problem is that with electricity prices still relatively cheap in North America, it is not cost-effective to install your own solar generating system without large government subsidies. There have been some innovative funding programs to encourage individuals and organizations to install solar panels.

Ground source heat pumps

A terrific technology for heating and cooling purposes is the ground source heat pump, also known as geothermal energy. The ground source heat pump, not to be confused with geothermal electricity generation which is based on steam generated underground, uses the energy stored a few meters to tens of meters under the ground to heat or cool the building. Deeper than about 3 meters, the temperature of the earth is almost constant year-round; depending on the latitude, it can range from about 7 to 14° centigrade. The ground source heat pump extracts heat from underground loops of pipes to heat the home in winter, and delivers heat from the home to the pipes in the summer to cool the house. Since the heat pump is only moving heat, it takes much less energy than a normal heating and cooling system. Currently, the biggest impediment to wider scale implementation of the ground source heat pumps is the cost of the loops, especially in urban areas where they have to be drilled vertically.

Biofuels

Recently there have been some encouraging signs in the area of biofuels. In the past, the argument has been whether the energy it takes to grow and process the biomaterial that is used as an input to the process requires more energy than you get from the output of the process. Iogen, a company in Ottawa, now has a process that uses waste plant material which appears to show good potential. Even so, Patrick Foody Sr, founder of Iogen, said when asked about when biofuels will be in common use replied:

"The transportation fuels business is enormous, and transitions take time. I believe the bio-fuels segment of the market will continue to grow much faster than the overall market, and that we could see as much as 10% replacement within the next 10-15 years. In energy industry terms, that’s not a long time!"

New technology

People are inventive. Someone is always coming up with a new idea for an energy source and more efficient ways to use energy. Recently I was reading about artificial tornadoes designed to generate electricity. Undoubtedly some of these technologies will eventually come to fruition. What many people don't realize is how long it takes from when an idea is first devised until a working product is created. Take for example a Toshiba 52" Wide Screen Digital Light Processing, or DLP, Projection television. Dealers describe this as new technology, and to most people it is - it has been around about two years. But the original DLP device was invented in 1987, almost 20 years ago. Sure you can argue that it took 20 years to develop and market this technology because it is not as critical as energy technology; on the other hand, it does not require the size and scale that energy production does. So while I am optimistic that the potential for new technology and inventiveness exists, I am not optimistic it will happen in time.

Randy Park