Clean Energy, page-31

We have Patent in Canada, in the not too distant future, surely.

Smith: Alberta can't afford not to phase out coal

Calgary Herald
More from Calgary Herald
Published on: October 3, 2015 | Last Updated: October 3, 2015 3:03 AM MDT

Burning coal is a dirty way to produce electricity. Christina Ryan / Calgary Herald
Share Adjust Comment Print
By Rick Smith
Though the federal election is sucking up a lot of oxygen these days, the developing discussion regarding the modernization of Alberta’s electricity generation is also gaining steam.
As it should.
Make no mistake — the accelerated phase-out of coal-fired power plants is a historic important opportunity not to be missed.
Yes, such a move would signal to the world an Alberta ready to join the global movement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and tackle climate change. But it would also signal to Albertans that their government takes seriously the province’s poor air quality and the related byproducts of negative health impacts and economic costs.
When the Alberta climate advisory panel meets Tuesday in Calgary to consult with the public and technical stakeholders on “economywide approaches for reducing greenhouse gas emissions,” the issue of an accelerated coal-phase out will continue to be a focal point.
Any meaningful plan to alter Alberta’s carbon emissions trajectory must address Alberta’s coal-fired electricity. The panel, however, should not overlook the co-benefits of a coal-phase out. Just as there is an economic cost of reducing emissions from coal-fired power plants and other industrial sources of pollution, there is a corresponding cost of inaction — to the environment, human health and the economy.
Burning coal is a very dirty way to produce electricity and it releases a number of other pollutants besides greenhouse gases, with very local impacts on the air that Albertans breathe.
The Broadbent Institute’s submission to the climate advisory panel, authored by environment and health policy expert John Wellner, investigates the state of Alberta’s air quality and provides evidence that Alberta’s coal plants are a significant contributor to airborne smog, ground level ozone and fine airborne particulate matter.
The report demonstrates the significant cumulative health impacts and large economic costs Alberta will endure if air quality is not improved. Using calculations from the Canadian Medical Association’s National Illness Cost of Air Pollution model, the report looks at what the cumulative health impacts of Alberta’s air pollution will be from 2015 to 2030.
The estimates are alarming.
Between 2015 and 2030 alone, air pollution will be responsible for more than 4,500 premature deaths and nearly 16,000 hospital admissions in Alberta. Days when Albertans will have minor illnesses, such as symptoms of asthma, are estimated at a total of more than 660,000 per year. The impacts affect the elderly and young disproportionately.
Albertans need little reminder of the soaring costs of health care. Well, the costs of treating those illnesses, along with lost productivity due to illness-related absences from work, is projected to be more than $760 million between 2015 and 2030 — almost $400 million of which represents provincial health-care costs.
When all of the costs are factored in, including the estimated cost of premature mortality, the total human health burden of air pollution in Alberta balloons to $12 billion.
It is important that the panel consider not just the current health impacts of burning coal, but also these cumulative impact and costs over time. Delaying the inevitable phase-out of coal has a human cost that increases as the years pass. There is also a very real economic cost associated with delay that must be contrasted with any economic impact statements put forth by the coal industry to argue for delayed action.
Alberta’s fleet of coal-fired power plants are not the only source of air pollution, but reducing emissions generated by burning coal would provide immediate air quality benefits. Many of the polluting coal plants are located near large communities. Their placement was based on proximity to the coal supply and the vulnerability of population centres to their emissions was not taken into account. The fact that there are three large plants upwind from the provincial capital is cause for significant concern, and their shuttering would provide immediate improvements to air the city’s residents breathe.
Critics of an accelerated coal phase-out are eager to point out that Alberta’s coal plants are already on their way to closure due to federal regulations. But even by 2029, 93 per cent of the stations will likely still be burning coal and polluting Alberta’s air.
Emission reductions are needed now. Jurisdictions around the continent and globe are moving away from coal-powered electricity. The United Kingdom, the United States, even China, are now moving aggressively to phase-out coal. Alberta is increasingly an outlier in its disproportionate dependence on this greenhouse gas emitting fossil fuel.
In Alberta, it’s true that coal is standing in the way of climate action. But there are also significant health benefits and economic savings to be had, both to Albertans and to the government-funded health-care sector should Alberta seize the opportunity to phase out this dirty fuel.
Rick Smith is executive director of the Broadbent Institute and co-author of two bestselling books on the health effects of pollution.

http://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/smith-alberta-cant-afford-not-to-phase-out-coal