The Landscape Impact of Power Supply Systems, and the Implications for the Development of a Smart Grid

Abstract:

To understand the many challenges the North American power grid faces, it is important to acknowledge the interconnected and interdependent nature of the system, as well as understand the engineering constraints that must be overcome to transition the present system of power supply, to a “smart-system” for which it was not designed. Future demand for increasing power flows with higher reliability, security, and protection will undoubtedly stretch the current supply system to its limits and due to the interdependence of the system, the potential ramifications of grid failure could precipitate throughout the economic, social, and environmental regimes of which all are connected. To understand the magnitude of this dilemma, one must first understand the many facets that make up the current power supply system, and the structure that the smart-grid necessitates. This paper will focus on the topic of power delivery through transmission and distribution systems: its present effects on the landscape, and the requirements needed for the transition to a smart grid.

In response to the While et al. article on eco-state restructuring and the rhythmic wave-like trend of climate change mitigation strategies, I would like to propose an alternative view of the overall process. In this paper I will summarize the concept of waves of eco-state restructuring as it is presented by While et al., then develop the concept as I see it to be which focuses on the cause behind the “waves”, and finally I will propose two possible outcomes based on this rationale.

According to While et al, “waves of eco-state restructuring” refers to the succession of movements that aim to organize the economic and environmental relations within capitalist states (eco-state restructuring). Some practises dominate a time period, but eventually a new system of governance is created and, without replacing the former, it is layered on top of its predecessors. There have been three major waves of restructuring, beginning in the late 1960’s through to the present. The first wave of governance can be traced back to the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, an era dominated by “prevention and control” measures aimed at internalizing the externalities of large scale industrialism. The next wave occurred during the mid-1980’s through to the mid-2000’s which focused on “sustainable development”. This form of governance was encouraged through developments like the Brundtland report of 1972, and the Rio Earth Summit of 1992. From the late 1990’s to present there has been a third wave of eco-state restructuring, dominated by market-based approaches to neoliberal environmental management, which emphasizes carbon control. This wave has gained momentum through the development and implementation of the Kyoto Protocol of 1997, and the Stern Review of 2006 (While et al. 2009).

In my opinion, these waves of eco-state restructuring are a product of the global expansion of neoliberalism, and the wake of externalities that follow behind it. The waves of environmental governance (eco-state restructuring), are therefore in response to the waves of externalities generated by neoliberal capitalism. This succession of strategies works to modify neoliberalism to reduce the affect of the system on the environment, but in so doing, the original problem is not adequately addressed.

My view of the overall process is best visualised through the analogy of a tanker-ship making its way around the world. Her name is Neoliberalism, and as she pushes on through the water (powered by fossil-fuels), she creates her own large wake that affects much more area than that immediately beneath the hull. The waves produced from this wake can be thought of as the negative externalities of production, and as these waves ripple out the distance between them increases. As each successive wave crashes onto the shore a new urgency is realized, and beginning in the late 60’s the people standing on the shore began considering ways to combat and eliminate the effects of the waves created by the wake of Neoliberalism. They tried to rework the shape of the vessel to streamline it and reduce the wake it generates, but each successive attempt to re-engineer the ship has been time-intensive and (so far), ineffective.

The first few waves that hit shore during the 1970’s generated concern and spawned the “prevention and control” era. But as the externalities of neoliberalism continued to roll onto shore (and with increasing magnitude), it was clear that the current mitigation strategies were not enough. The waves that hit shore during the 80’s and 90’s were larger and became more global in scope, so the urgency and effort to combat these effects was expanded and new movements were created to coordinate the restructuring process. But the ship continued on. In recent times the externalities of neoliberal production continue to reach our shores, and again we have developed new methods to streamline the ship. This time we have opted to drastically reconfigure the nature of the vessel to incorporate the wake into its production function, relying heavily on the development of technology and market-based policy tools.

This rationale allows for a cause and effect to be calculated, and helps display the root of the problem. It seems that the reason these waves of environmental governance continually fail is not that the concepts themselves won’t work, but that they can’t work because they are in opposition to capitalism. Going back to my analogy, it’s like trying to build a boat that creates no wake, and as I see it there are only two ways of doing this.

The first way is to completely redesign the vessel so it leaves the surface undisturbed, for example we could ride above the surface on a hovercraft or even an airplane. This, however, means throwing out capitalism and starting fresh, it would require a complete overhaul of the economic and social system as we know it and to my knowledge there is no such approach that exists today that could offer any of the required economic, social or environmental objectives. The second way to modify a ship to eliminate the wake is to simply throw out an anchor and kill the engines, otherwise known as a steady-state economy. Tim Jackson defines a steady-state economy as a system in which “stability no longer relies on ever-increasing consumption growth… One in which our capabilities to flourish – within ecological limits – become the guiding principle for design and the key criterion for success” (Jackson 2009: 43). The concept of a steady-state economy rests on the assumption that consumerism/ consumption can be reduced and conservation instilled within both individuals and nations globally (Daly 2009; Jackson 2009). It may be a stretch of the imagination to assume we can learn restraint and cooperation, but right now it may be the best strategy we have given the nature of our situation, and our long history of ineffective management.

Literature Cited:

Daly, Herman. “From a Failed Growth Economy to a Steady-State Economy”. American University, Washington D.C. June 1, 2009.

Jackson, Tim. “Prosperity without Growth? Economics for a Finite Planet”. Earthscan Publishing. (2009) Sterling, VA, USA. Print.

While, Aiden;  Andrew Jonas; David Gibbs. From sustainable development to carbon control: eco-state restructuring and the politics of urban and regional development. (2009) Department of Geography, University of Hull, Hull, UK. Print.

I’ve recently run into this analysis of capitalism called “The Cream Separator”. It’s a story by Tommy Douglas; a Canadian social democratic politician, 7th Premier of Saskatchewan, and creator of public funded healthcare.

I think it’s a great analogy to the current state of capitalism and ties in well with many of the articles we’ve looked at.

Here it is….

THE CREAM SEPARATOR

I used to visit in farm homes, particularly around meal time, and if I got in around dinner time of course, everybody in the family was busy. They were unhitching the horses. They were pumping the water. They were milking the cows. They were pitching down the hay and the oat sheaves. Somebody else was out gathering the eggs.

Somebody else was feeding the pigs and the chickens. Everybody had something to do. Even the youngsters were given a job doing something, for instance gathering the eggs or feeding the chickens.

And here I was, right off the city streets. I didn’t know what to do, and I said “give me something to do.” Well, nobody was going to trust this city boy with milking a good cow. They gave me the one job that anybody could do. They gave me the job of turning the handle of the cream separator.

Any of you ever turned the handle on the cream separator? Well it’s quite an experience. I got to be quite good at it. I got to the place where I could tell you how many verses of “Onward Christian Soldiers” it takes to put a pan of milk through this thing. And as I was turning the handle and they were pouring in the milk, and I could see the cream come out the one spout and the skim milk coming out of the other spout, one day it finally penetrated my thick Scotch head that this cream separator is exactly like our economic system.

Here are the primary producers, the farmers and the fishermen and the loggers. They are pouring in the milk. And here are the workers, whether they work on the railroad or go down to the mines or sail ships or work in a store or a bank, or teach school, clerk in the store, work in a hospital. They are the people whose services make the economy go round, and they’re turning the handle. So here you have it: primary producer puts in the milk; people who work with hand and brain turn the handle. And then I thought, but there’s another fellow here somewhere. There’s a fellow who owns this cream separator. And he’s sitting on a stool with the cream spout in his mouth. And the primary producer and the worker take turns on the skim milk spout. And they don’t like skim milk. Nobody likes skim milk. And they blame it on each other And the worker says, “If those farmers and fishermen, you know, would work a little harder, well I wouldn’t be drinking this skim milk.” And the fishermen and the farmers say, “If those workers didn’t demand a forty hour week, didn’t want such high wages, I wouldn’t have to live on this blue milk.” But you know they’re both wrong.

The farmers and the fishermen have produced so much we don’t know what to do with it; we’ve got surpluses of foodstuffs. And the workers, they’ve produced so well that today nearly a million of them are unemployed. The fault is not with the worker. It is not with the primary producer. The fault is with this machine. This machine was built to give skim milk to the worker and the primary producer, and to give cream to the corporate elite.

As a matter of fact, it doesn’t always do that because every once in a while this little fellow sitting on the stool with the cream spout in his mouth gets indigestion. And he says, “Boys, stop this machine. We got a recession!” He says to the worker, “You’re laid off; you can go on unemployment insurance, and after that on welfare.” And he says to the farmers and the fishermen, “You know, we don’t need your stuff. Take it back home.” And then he sits for a while, indigestion gets better, burps a couple of times, says, “Alright, boys, start the machine. Happy days are here again. Cream for me and skim milk for both of you.”

Now what the, what the democratic socialist party has been saying to Canadians for a long time is that the time has come in this land of ours for the worker and the primary producer to get their hands on the regulator of the machine so that it begins to produce homogenized milk in which everybody’ll get a little cream.

–          Tommy Douglas, 1944.

Hey Guys,

My faculty sent out an invitation to the 2010 Clean Energy Conference, happening October 8th and 9th. The student rate is $100, which is major steep, but I think it would be great to attend. I’ve attached the file and it looks like there will be some really interesting discussions.

2010 Clean Energy Conference

Adam.

When considering the impacts of a wide-scale land disturbance, it’s important to weigh the political, economic, and social elements that are or will be affected. This article will attempt to further examine the long-term ecological and landscape impact of fossil fuel extraction by examining the reclamation standards determined by the Alberta provincial government. Using the Alberta oil sands as a case study, I will look at open pit mining rather than Steam Assisted Gravity Drained (SAGD) operations as this type of extraction involves the largest landscape impact of the development. I propose that due to the substantial environmental impact in this region, the current reclamation standards fail to encompass the grand scale of the oil sand development.

According to the Alberta Oilsands Vegetation Reclamation Committee, any user of public land whether it be a private timber licensee or a multinational energy corporation, must “achieve maintenance-free, self-sustaining ecosystems with capabilities equivalent to or better than pre-disturbance conditions” (OSVRC, 1998). For many industries such as forestry, this is a complex but very attainable task, and in many cases the outcome does actually benefit the ecosystem (such as salvage harvesting Mountain Pine Beetle stands). For other resource sectors following the governmental guidelines, the task is completely moot. The Alberta oil sand extraction, for example, is a large-scale development that involves ecosystem reconstruction at the scale of entire landscapes. “Given the large area of each mine (ca. 100 km2) eventually to be stripped and mined, this is not a restoration problem but the engineering of new ecosystems” (Johnson. 2008). For example, the largest tailings pond in the world “Mildred Lake”, resides in the Athabasca region which is owned and operated by Syncrude Canada Ltd. The Mildred Lake Settling Basin has a water surface area of 13 km², and holds more than 400 million m³ of tailings (Fedorak et al. 2002). Further, a major problem with using tailings ponds as a disposal method is the slow rate of sedimentation of the fine tailings, which could take 125–150 years (Eckert et al. 1996), which far surpasses the reclamation timeframe.

Because of the oil sands development of the landscape, the ground and surface hydrology is rerouted wherein whole wetlands and creeks disappear or move, the soil chemistry is changed to a point that native species won’t grow without annual fertilization, and whole boreal ecosystems are removed (OSVRC. 1998). The current remediation tactics use the same reclamation standards that the forestry industry uses, requiring “80% of the plots in a standard survey to be stocked with an acceptable tree(s) to a minimum height standard” (Alberta SRD. 2008). This standard is based on the assumption that the ecosystem occupying the site after the disturbance will be the same or similar to what it was prior; but because open pit mining alters the whole landscape, the silvicultural prescription will not necessarily equate to what remains after extraction. Regarding development in peatland areas, Mark Sherrington writes “peatlands are vegetation communities established on organic soils over several thousand years and cannot be reclaimed in the 80–100 year time period considered for reclamation in the Oil Sands region” (Sherrington. 2005). This means the peatlands removed for development will, at best, be returned to marches or swamps which don’t support the biodiversity or carbon storage that the peatlands previously did. The reclamation procedure also relies on salvaging peat deposits from the excavation sites, as well as harvesting organic soils and peat from offsite locations to mix with the replaced top soil, to create a suitable growth medium. While this method is “noteworthy because native seeds and root fragments transferred with the soil became established and grew rapidly on the reclamation sites” (OSVRC. 1998), it further expands the “footprint” of the operation and relies on fragile ecosystems to provide another resource to supplement the damages driven by fossil fuel consumption, which in turn releases more carbon previously stored in the frozen organics within the peatland permafrost. This is analogous to the consumption of a cleaner energy, natural gas, (or maybe even nuclear), to produce energy deemed by President Barack Obama as “dirty, dwindling, and dangerous.”

For these reasons, it should be clear that the generic reclamation standards of the province are not sufficient when dealing with such a macro anthropogenic disturbance. Reclaiming this land involves more than a superficial cleanup with the assumption that nature will restore itself and it’s unrealistic to assume that the landscape after extraction would resemble anything close to “pre-disturbance conditions”. As filmmaker Shannon Walsh and writer Macdonald Stainsby point out: Alberta’s failed reclamation strategy is “an absurdist creation only possible at this point in market-utopian logics” (Walsh. 2010). To recreate viable whole landscapes, a strategy must be created with the end goals and design objectives clearly laid out, a bottom up approach; which would allow developers to incorporate final objectives into land-use planning. The Landscape Design Checklist proposal by the Cumulative Environmental Management Association does just this. The document recommends compiling the design objectives into a checklist for creation of landscapes, and then incorporate the checklist into the design process. “Although many of the items in the design checklist may already be incorporated into the design process by some mining operation staff and their consultants, not all items are routinely or optimally followed, and the process is seldom systematic” (CEMA. 2005). If a design such as this were integrated into the provincial reclamation policies and guidelines, it may encourage a forward-looking approach rather than one that prioritizes short-term issues for the largest profit, and would contractually obligate the companies to reclaim land to a standard that actually supports the re-establishment of healthy ecosystems and landscapes.

Nevertheless, if reclamation standards change to incorporate ecosystem reconstruction at the scale of whole landscapes and hold the oil companies to a greater environmental accountability, this will effectively increase the costs of reclamation and therefore the overall cost of production. This would drive the cost and consequently the price of each barrel of oil from the oil sands up, which would create even greater disdain for a resource that is already marginally accepted by North American societies; (although the reduced environmental pressure does stand to reduce social pressure). If Alberta continues to allow large scale landscape reconstruction and environmental modification without fully acknowledging the long-term consequences of these actions, then I propose that the term reclamation be changed to masturbation; because it may look and feel good right now but in the long-run their only screwing themselves.

Literature Cited:

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2008. Alberta Regeneration Survey Manual. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Forest Management Branch. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Effective May 1, 2008.

CEMA-RWG Landscape Design Subgroup. 2005. Landscape Design Checklist, Revised RSDS Government Regulator Version, May 2005. Cumulative Environmental Management Association. Fort McMurray, AB. http://www.cemaonline.ca/  (accessed on October 22, 2010)

Eckert, W.F., Masliyah, J.H., Gray, M.R., and Fedorak, P.M. 1996. Prediction of sedimentation and consolidation of fine tails. AIChE J. 42: 960–972.

Fedorak, P.M., Coy, D.L., Salloum, M.J., Dudas, M.J. 2002. Methanogenic Potential of Tailings Samples from Oil Sands Extraction Plants. Department of Biological Sciences; Department of Renewable Resources, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. NRC Research Press.

Johnson, E.A., Miyanishi, K. 2008. Creating New Landscapes and Ecosystems: The Alberta Oil Sands. Department of Biological Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; Department of Geography, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada.

Oil Sands Vegetation Reclamation Committee, 1998. Guidelines for Reclamation to Forest Vegetation in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region. Alberta Environmental Protection. Edmonton, AB.

Walsh. Shannon; Stainsby, Macdonald.  2010. Sparking a Worldwide Energy Revolution. AK Press, Chapter 28, Part 7. Pages 333-344.

Any discussion of sustainable development is in itself problematic, as it suggests developing or improving upon something that is constant or unchanging. If this logic is used to critically evaluate sustainable capitalism, then it too is a flawed concept. This paper stands to illustrate the problems associated with the concept of sustainable capitalism and review potential steps that will allow a transition from carbon dependency to a system based on clean energy.

“While there are many variations of economic growth theory, all presuppose that capitalism cannot stand still; that the system must expand or contract, in other words, that it is both crisis-ridden and crisis-dependant…” (O’Connor 1998: 240). This statement brings up the first and second contradictions to capitalism; the first contradiction states that when capital tries to increase profits by reducing costs at the expense of the labour force, (i.e. mechanization/automation, or wage reductions); it inadvertently causes a reduction in consumer demand, a demand-side crisis. The second contradiction of capitalism states that “capital limits itself by impairing its own social and environmental conditions, hence increasing the costs and expenses of capital…” (O’Connor 1998: 159). This contradiction assumes that individual capitals offset the economic costs of increased production onto society and the environment, which evades the short-term costs but increases the negative long-term effects. With this reasoning it’s plausible to state that for capitalism to be sustainable it must commoditize its own barriers; that is, it must create a market for alternative energy, environmental cleanup and monitoring, occupational health and safety, and so on, so that these elements become part of, rather than against the capitalist system.

Carbon offsetting has created such a step, wherein it promotes carbon reduction by penalising activities/procedures that are carbon intensive. The income generated from this method would “allow industrialized countries to meet their [Kyoto] emission reduction targets by purchasing emission reductions that are associated with projects in the developing world…or eastern European economies in transition.” (Bumpus 2008: 128). While this step works to help solve the problem, it alone is far from the answer. Over time many problems have arisen from carbon offsetting, which is to be expected as this method should be viewed as a step in the right direction rather than the solution to the overall problem. Carbon taxation is another step to reduce carbon dependence, in which indirect taxes are implemented on fossil fuel inputs such as coal and oil, and outputs like gasoline and propane, in proportion to their carbon content. Within Canada, this model works similar to carbon offsetting in that it provides incentives to reduce carbon usage, but it does so in a rather direct manner that is easier for users to calculate. This model reallocates the tax revenue to fund carbon reduction techniques, but the income generated remains within each province, rather than going to developing nations. While carbon offsetting and taxation help provide incentives to reduce carbon dependence and provide global funding for a sustainable energy system, they do not provide the solution. These carbon incentives have been introduced to many nations and corporations, but are not well monitored or enforced. As such, there is a need to create a governing body or bodies to oversee progress and further develop the system.

This calls upon individual governments to develop “national expenditure policies that heavily subsidize alternative energy sources; technological research that leads to eliminating toxic chemicals and other substances at the source; innovations in mass transit; occupational health and safety conditions; national, regional and community enforcement procedures; and a redefinition and reorientation of scientific and technological priorities generally.” (O’Connor 1998: 237). This action will be met with resistance from both industry and society as it removes some elements of free will and imposes requirements on both. Government involvement, however, plays a key role in redefining our use of energy and has the ability to improve the development of sustainable capitalism and reduce the timeframe, through subsidies and enforcement. In this situation, involvement needs to be brought in methodically to minimize the short-term losses of profit, and it should be done in a way that encourages cooperation rather than enforcing it. This can begin with methods like carbon taxing, which will help subsidize the infrastructure mentioned above. Involvement by a governing body is necessary, as the task is too large to assume individuals will effectively take it upon themselves to organize and commit to a plan in which short-term profits are reduced, for a hope of long-term gains that may not be realized in their generation. For this reason, a global shift in the way individuals consume their resources must also accompany the change.

For too long developed nations, especially continental North America, have had seemingly unlimited access to cheap energy and this has fostered nations driven by overconsumption. The capitalist modality of wealth accrual and profit maximization has created and egocentric outlook, which places little emphasis on externalities created during the process. Developed societies need to move from a consumption-dominated behaviour to that of conservation. The availability of cheap energy has also allowed the development of steadily rising wages, and so as the cost of energy increases, there will likely be an effort on the part of capital to cheapen labour, which again brings up the first contradiction to capitalism (Abramsky 2010). Therefore these proposed solutions involve increasing the cost of energy and activities that use energy through direct and indirect taxes, while decreasing the cost of labour and parts of the labour force. On the other hand there will be new markets created for economic opportunities, but it will be important to regulate these markets so that the wealth is shared among the people, not only going to the hands of a few large corporations or nations.

Society needs to find a way to subsidize or finance a transition to cleaner energy sources that won’t induce a crisis in the economic system. We need to find a way to effectively switch from readily available, cheap energy, and move to an energy system that promotes a conservative outlook at energy usage through deterrents and incentives. For the above reasons it is especially critical that this shift is received by both industry and society, as this is an issue that cannot be fixed quickly, but must be brought into global culture and created as a social norm.

Literature Cited:

1. O’Connor, James. 1998. Natural Causes. Guilford Press. London

2. Bumpus, Adam., Liverman, Diana. 2008. Accumulation by Decarbonisation and the Governance of Carbon Offsets. Economic Geography. Volume 84, Issue 2, pages 127-155.

3. Abramsky, Kolya. 2010. Sparking a Worldwide Energy Revolution. AK Press