Phasing out coal in Alberta was supported by good policy design driven by carbon pricing and regulations with clear targets that offered necessary certainty to the industry and stakeholders
Coal accounted for 80 per cent of Alberta’s electricity grid in the early 2000s and it still amounted to 60 per cent just 10 years ago. When phasing out coal was just an idea being batted around, many said it couldn’t be done. This is not dissimilar to the rhetoric today around decarbonizing the grid. But Alberta’s experience phasing out coal shows environmental progress of this magnitude is possible.
Sounds good when you phrase it like the headline. But all they’ve done is trade coal for natural gas. So it’s still a carbon heavy power grid, just slightly better than coal.
Agreed. IMHO, Natural Gas has a place in systems like Ontario’s. Here we’re mostly using it in peaker plants, and to make a smooth transition to renewables since it’s fairly easy to convert coal plants to Natural Gas.
NG may actually be just as bad or worse. Methane amplifies the greenhouse effect (IIRC) 4x as much as CO2 per unit volume emitted, and it’s much harder to track the emissions of the NG industry because most of it comes from methane leaks. The FF industry loves NG for that exact reason. If you are leaking an odourless gas, you don’t need to report what you can’t possibly track. So the self-reported emissions numbers look way better than they probably actually are.
For the climate, probably, but for acute health effects and smog, coal is so much worse.
The word for natural gas leaks is so good, fugitive emissions. I think the government is doing a reasonable job at tracking them though and they make up a significant amount of the carbon budget.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
Good stuff. Danielle Smith is failing her fossil fuel mafia owners.
The whole Danielle Smith thing has the feel of a disorganised last stand against the inevitable.
That’s my hope!
A last stand of the stupid, fighting to prevent adequacy.
Sounds good when you phrase it like the headline. But all they’ve done is trade coal for natural gas. So it’s still a carbon heavy power grid, just slightly better than coal.
Agreed. IMHO, Natural Gas has a place in systems like Ontario’s. Here we’re mostly using it in peaker plants, and to make a smooth transition to renewables since it’s fairly easy to convert coal plants to Natural Gas.
Good point.
NG may actually be just as bad or worse. Methane amplifies the greenhouse effect (IIRC) 4x as much as CO2 per unit volume emitted, and it’s much harder to track the emissions of the NG industry because most of it comes from methane leaks. The FF industry loves NG for that exact reason. If you are leaking an odourless gas, you don’t need to report what you can’t possibly track. So the self-reported emissions numbers look way better than they probably actually are.
For the climate, probably, but for acute health effects and smog, coal is so much worse.
The word for natural gas leaks is so good, fugitive emissions. I think the government is doing a reasonable job at tracking them though and they make up a significant amount of the carbon budget.
Fracking. Need I say more?