The case of Atikokan, Ontario
Forest biomass is expected to become an important part of government strategies for the achievement of sustainability and low-carbon goals. The forest resource is used differently all around the world and in many parts is already under pressure. At the same time, the energy sector is on the edge of transformation with an increased demand in developing countries and fossil fuels uncertainties. The expansion of the biomass sector raises different ethical questions. Should forest resource be preserved to respect an intergenerational equity? Based on the principle of intragenerational equity, how should the resource be distributed to meet the energy needs of each individual and who gets to decide the way the resource will be used? The case of the Atikokan community presents a good canadian example of how decision makers have or have not dealt with all the conflicting issues at stake in both energy and forest resource managements.
Background/History
The use of biomass for power generation is not a new idea. At the beginning of the 20th century, before oil became an industry's favourite source of energy, first motor engines were powered by alcohol generated from agriculture (Carolan 2009). Fuel wood has been around since a much earlier period for heating, cooking and small-scale industries. Traditional biofuel still represents 10 to 15% of supply around the world and is the most important source of energy for about three quarters of individuals and households living in developing countries (Arnold et al. 2003; Hall and Scrase 1998).
After the oil crisis of 1973-1974, new international collaboration on energy issues resulted in the creation of the International Energy Agency which gave birth to the IEA Bioenergy in 1978 (IEA Bioenergy 2011). New progress and research opportunities led to the emergence of technologies that increased the energy value in biomass resources. Projects existed in Sweden, Canada and other European countries but it was not before the 1990s, when fossil fuels uncertainties and fluctuations became a major concern again (Parker et Gliedt 2010), that bioenergy gained more popularity on international markets and for industrial use.
More recently, another factor that justifies an increase of interest is the capacity for modern biofuels to be labelled as clean, efficient and renewable source of energy in the context of global climate concerns. International negotiations on greenhouse gas emissions reductions are creating a demand for a low-carbon economy and bioenergy is becoming a strategic development for countries with large forest resources or surplus in agricultural lands. (Hillring, 2006)
Forest biomass is one type of feedstock from which power can be produced. The process can be divided in three steps in which human manipulations are necessary to get either transportation fuel, heat, electricity or solid fuel (wood pellets). The first step involves forestry practices for the management of the resource itself. The second step has to do with the harvesting, collection, handling and storage. And finally, different chemical processes are required for the conversion (IEA Bioenergy, 2011).
The idea that forest biomass makes an efficient, sustainable and ethical energy source, is still the object of debates in the literature. Some studies show that biomass has lower pollution and GHG emissions than coal and oil (Zhang et al. 2010; Hall and Scrase 1998). Many proponents sell the concept of carbon-neutrality which means that all the carbon emitted by the fuel combustion is offset by the carbon absorbed in the new replanted forest (Johnson 2009). But some of the raised concerns with this theory are that many carbon lifecycle assessments do not account for emissions related to the other steps of production (harvesting, handling, conversion, etc.) and to the indirect land use change (ILUC). According to Booth and Wiles (2010) and Johnson (2009), biomass can produce more carbon emissions than fossil fuels per unit of energy generated because it has a very low density of energy, a lot is lost during the conversion and following a logging, a forest takes at least 30 years before it starts sinking carbon again.
Biomass is seen as the only non-intermittent renewable energy susceptible to replace fossil fuels in all sectors such as transportation fuels, heat and electricity (IEA Bioenergy 2011). But to qualify as renewable, the resource must be managed in sustainable manners (Hall et Scrase 1998). The main challenge lies in the harvesting of whole-trees and residues compared to traditional use of the forest resource where small branches, leaves and other low grade biomass is left on the ground. Because most of the nutrients are found in leaves and smaller parts of the trees, soils are threatened of nutrient loss. Common and emerging forestry practices for mitigation are the use of fertilizers and genetical engineering. This poses problems for water quality and biodiversity (Richardson et Manley 1995).
On a social aspect, many agree that the growing world energy demand, especially in developing countries, and the need to lower the carbon emissions are legitimate reasons to search for ways of enhancing the bioenergy environmental and economical performances. But, as Hillring (2006) argues, an increased pressure on wood stock affects other users of the resource. Some of the potential competitors for the land and resource are indigenous people, tourist operators, other forestry sectors, conservationists and people who rely on traditional woodfuels.
International efforts are now being put into sustainable criteria and indicators for the forest fuel sector. Stupak et al. (2010) underline that developed countries tend to focus their assessments on environmental impacts as opposed to developing countries who are more concerned with the social impacts which create a challenge to those trying to find international standards.
The Atikokan case
Ontario first coal-fired generating stations started the diversification of the province energy supply during the 1950s. At the turn of the century, Ontario was powered by a mix of hydro, nuclear and coal which represented 25% of the total supply. In 2003 when a new government came into office, infrastructures were aging, energy demand growing and investments needed (Ontario Minister of Energy, 2010). In 2007, both the Ontario's Action Plan on Climate Change (GoGreen 2007) that called for substantial GHG emission reduction and the Integrated Power System Plan (IPSP 2007) that targeted energy efficiency, nuclear, wind and solar were released. Coal was no match for this new vision anymore so the government pledged to phase it out in the regulation 496/07 under the Ontario Environmental Protection Act.
Addressing climate and energy challenge with a sustainable and integrated approach may be viewed by the majority as a science-based decision for the public interest and the right path forward (Parker et Gliedt). But for a remote resource-based community in Northern Ontario named Atikokan the phasing out of coal was another nail in their coffin. In its case study of Atikokan, Carson (2010) describes the community as being a typical example common around Canada, United States and Australia. Small communities with undiversified economies are some of the most vulnerable when polluting industries that employ them are forced to move away or close because of new pollution control regulations. Carson reports:
“Boomtown with a future,” read the headlines in the Toronto Star Weekly on August 5, 1958 [...] a few years later it was a bustling town of 7,000 people
Unfortunately for Atikokan, the mines and lumber mills did not last until the end of the millenium. In 2008, the population was 3,200 and the closure of the Atikokan coal-fired station meant the elimination of one of the last major employer. Despite the fact that the new policy was beneficial for the majority, Carson explains that Atikokan had justified moral claims towards the government for compensation. The municipality eventually won its case. The government delayed the closure of the power station to 2014 and paid for a study of new economic opportunities. About 30 alternatives were identified including “the promotion of tourism, town beautification, mine exploration, and new wood products manufacturing” (Carson).
Finally, the opportunities offered by biomass were seen as the most promising. In 2006, the Ontario Ministry of Energy hired a consultant firm named Forest BioProducts to produce a pre-feasibility study assessing the availability and cost of seven different biomass feedstocks (such as Forest Biomass, Fuel-Grade Peat, Municipal Solid Waste) that could be used to replace coal in the Atikokan Generation Station (Forest BioProducts. 2006). The study also identified carbon lifecycle, risks and mitigation strategies.
For forest biomass, risks identified were: GHG and contaminant emissions; nutrient depletion; reduced biodiversity; damages and pollution to air and water due to road construction, harvesting, forestry equipment and ash disposal; competition with pulp and paper industry for allocation of feedstock and social risks related to First Nations. The consultants outlined that theoretical demand of forest biomass by the pulp and paper industry was significantly lower than the assessed availability of the resource. But a lack of data and the fact that the forest sector needs to keep cost low to stay competitive could lead to a long-term conflict for the resource and decrease of value-added opportunities. The forest biomass also promised an increase of 200 jobs in the harvesting of biofuels process. About C$300 million would be required to convert the Atikokan GS and its capacity would decrease from 215 MW to 150 MW (Forest BioProducts).
Other feedstock options were also studies. Fuel-grade peat which is present in bogs and has a higher energy value would allow the energy production of the Atikokan GS to stay at 215 MW for about $C200 million and it would create 100 jobs in the area. Even though the resource is though to exist in sufficient amount to meet the needs, higher environmental risks are associated with this type of fuel such as the drying and disturbance of the water system. Competition with First Nations and impacts on ecotourism were also being highlighted. Bogs areas have high ecological values due to their rich biodiversity and their capacity of filtering and holding water in the ground (Forest BioProducts).
A required individual Environmental Assessment was submitted by the proponent of fuel-grade peat resource, Peat Resources Ltd. (2006) In the process, negotiations were under way with the Mille Lac First Nation who saw the industry as a good opportunity for employment on their reserve. The Peat Resources Ltd’s assessment also presented a new technology supposed to limit the damage done to the peatland and allow its regeneration within 3 years. Forest BioProducts mentioned a technological risk due to the fact that no proper trials had been conducted.
The last possibility considered for a replacement feedstock by the Minister of Energy’s study was Toronto’s municipal waste. That option had reduced risks when it came to environmental impacts, and no competition of resource what so ever. The city was only capable of providing half of the power station needs so a complementary option had to be considered. Because the waste fuel is corrosive, the Atikokan Station would require more sophisticated transformation that could cost about $C400 million for a decrease capacity of 215 MW to 150 MW. Jobs would have been created mainly in Toronto and the city would have solved a major waste problem. Fuel would have had to be transported by trains.
This study gave the government what it needed to venture in the biomass sector. The consultants outlined the many issues that had to be addressed and most mitigation options required further data collection and research. In 2006, the provincial government established a public-private partnership (PPP) and gave C$4 million for the creation of the Atikokan Bio-Energy Research Centre (ABRC). The PPP included the government of Canada, the government of Ontario, the Ontario Centres of excellence, five post-secondary institutions (Queen’s University, University of Toronto, McMaster University, Lakehead University, Confederation College) and 29 private sector partners that invested a further C$4.3 million for research. (Carson 2010).
In March 2010, the ABRC presented their research final results. Some technological progresses were achieved. Among them, a team investigated processes to make used ash by-products. Another one experimented wet harvesting of peat and turned the harvested land into wild rice, blueberries and cranberries plantations. A new more efficient wood pellet was also developed (McKinnon 2010).
In August, the government ordered the Ontario Power Authority (OPA), which is the long-term energy planner, to negotiate a buying agreement of the Atikokan GS from its owner the publicly owned company Ontario Power Generation (OPG). (Ontario 2010) This marked the official beginning of the station transformation, making the government announce without too much details its intention to use wood pellets to generate 150 MW per year and give a boost to the forestry sector in the region.
Meanwhile the Ministry of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry had launched in 2009 a competitive process for new allocations of about 750,000 cubic meters of Forested Crown land per year. Results have been released recently. 150 submissions were received and 11 proponents were allowed new resources. Atikokan renewable fuels, who was planning to convert the biomass into wood pellets, was the first company to receive its share of about 180,000 cubic meters per year or a quarter of all the new accessible lands (Ontario MNDMF 2011).
Discussion
When the community of Atikokan protested against the phasing out of their coal-fired power station, it was not long before the government got on board with biomass projects. The town wanted it and if it was economically viable it was going to kill two birds with one stone. Employment and economic opportunities for a remote community and the pursuit of the government’s "green" agenda.
During the early stages of the projects some environmental and social concerns were acknowledged. But once the business case was built, no one was there to keep the concerns under the spotlight. No one wanted to kill the Atikokan dream of a new found economy.
In its sociological study on the early popularities of ethanol, Carolan discusses the fact that oil eventually surpassed the alcohol not because it was the absolute cheapest and most efficient fuel but as a result of politics.
The same reality is happening today with biofuels being an alternative that does not require a massive transformation of the infrastructures. A fuel that can be used in a near exact same way as fossil fuels. It is a lot less energy efficient but government regulations and public opinion can make it economically viable. For example, while many scholars raise questions about the so-called carbon neutrality of biomass (Booth and Wiles 2010; Johnson 2009), the GHG Reporting Regulation 452/09 under the Ontario Environmental Protection Act stipulates that: “With respect to biomass, the Regulation allows regulated emitters to deduct up to 15,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide generated from a facility through the combustion of biomass based on the theory that the combustion of biomass, which draws CO2 from the atmosphere as it grows, is carbon neutral”.
One must recognize the effort of the Ontario government for investing in a research program that brought many disciplines together and for creating a space of exchange, collaboration and innovation. It is also worth mentioning the support that the people of Atikokan received from their government while many resource-based communities are left to their own aging.
But it is fair to ask if this was the most sustainable solution for this community and for the province. The assessment provided little space for fundamental questions and for the option of not doing any biomass projects. Will this economy start to diversify or will it still be resource-dependant? What will become of the other options that the town envisioned like the promotion of tourism and town beautification? When the government gave its new permits to the 11 proponents of the forest resource, what had the other 139 prospects to suggest? Was the so-called unused wood of any use for the biodiversity of the forest? But most fundamentally, at the heart of the biomass debate lies the debate of turning a high-ecological value weatland into blueberries plantation and of turning a tropical forest into a palm oil culture.
Sources
Booth, M. S., Wiles, R. (2010) Clearcut Disaster: Carbon Loophole Threatens U.S. Forests Environmental Working Group.
Carolan, M. S. (2009) A Sociological Look at Biofuels: Ethanol in the Early Decades of the Twentieth Century and Lessons for Today.” Rural Sociology, 74, 86-112.
Carson, A. S. (2010) Environmental Legislation and Harms to Remote Resource-Based Communities: The Case of Atikokan, Ontario. Business and Society Review, 115 (4), 437-466.
Forest BioProducts Inc. (2006). An Assessment of the Viability of Exploiting Bio-Energy Resources Accessible to the Atikokan Generating Station in Northwestern Ontario. Sault Ste. Marie, ON: Ontario Ministry of Energy.
Hall, D. O., Scrase, J. I. (1998) Will biomass be the environmentally friendly fuel of the future? Biomass and Bioenergy, 15, 357-367.
Hillring, B. (2006). World trade in forest products and wood fuel. Biomass and Bioenergy, 30, 815-825.
IEA Bioenergy. (2011). IEA Bioenergy. Retrieved from : http://www.ieabioenergy.com/IEABioenergy.aspx.
Johnson E. (2009) Goodbye to carbon neutral: Getting biomass footprints right. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 29, 165-168.
McKinnon, M. (2010, March 29). Rich array of practical benefits come out of work at Atikokan BioEnergy Research Station. Atikokan Progress. Retrieved from: http://www.atikokanprogress.ca/2010/03/29/rich-array-of-practical-benefits-come-out-of-work-at-atikokan-bioenergy-research-station/
Ontario (2010, August 26) McGuinty Government Adding More Clean Power, Creating Local Jobs. Ontario Newsroom. Retrieved from: http://www.news.ontario.ca/mei/en/2010/08/trading-coal-for-biomass-at-atikokan.html
Ontario Ministry of Energy. (2010) Ontario’s Long-Term Energy Plan. Ontario Ministry of Energy.
Ontario Ministry of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry (2011) Stage II - Provincial Wood Supply Competitive Process. Ontario MNDMF Retrieved February 14, 2011, from http://www.mndmf.gov.on.ca/forestry/crownwood_e.asp
Parker, P., Gliedt, T. (2010). Integrated Energy Resource Management. In B. Mitchell, Resource and environmental management in Canada : addressing conflict and uncertainty (4th ed.) (pp. 154-180). Don Mills: Oxford University Press.
Richardson, J., Manley, A. (1995) Silviculture and economic benefits of producing wood energy from conventional forestry systems and measures to mitigate negative impacts. Biomass and Bioenergy, 9
Saxe, D. (2009, July 6) Biomass and the Green Energy Act. Environmental Law and Litigation. Retrieved from: http://envirolaw.com/biomass-and-the-green-energy-act/
Stupak I et al. (2010) Criteria and indicators for sustainable forest fuel production and harvesting: A review of current standards for sustainable forest management. Biomass and Bioenergy
Zhang Y et al. (2010) Life Cycle Emissions and Cost of Producing Electricity from Coal, Natural Gas, and Wood Pellets in Ontario, Canada. Environmental Science & Technology, 44, 538-544.
No comments:
Post a Comment