I wrote this essay during my first year at Queen's to try to impress an economist at RBC for a job. The job didn't pan out, but I learned a ton about hydroelectricity. Hopefully, the effort didn't go to waste.

Originally written on February 17th, 2020

In 2019, climate change dominated much of the everyday discussion. Every media network, corporation, politician, even your distant cousin, has assessed our current circumstances and formed an opinion on the issue. The question shared amongst every Canadian, politician, and corporation is: what sort of action does this increasingly emerging problem warrant?

Of course, the obvious answer comes to mind: eliminate all fossil fuels and greenhouse gas-emitting processes. Unfortunately, it only takes ten minutes worth of research on the economics of world energy consumption to determine that the world is more likely to establish a colony on Mars before eliminating all fossil fuels.

Multilateral agreements between countries, such as the Paris Climate Agreement, are a step in the right direction. The Paris agreement alone pledges to reduce GHG emissions by 30% by 2030. However, even the participating nations of this agreement are currently not on track to meet their GHG reduction goals. Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) released a statement last September stating that even under a “best-case scenario,” Canada will only be able to reduce emissions by 19% come 2030.

To quote Richard Feynman, a notable American physicist, “there is a hope.”

Hydroelectricity: Clean Energy Projects

Hydro is clean, renewable, carries significant economic benefits, and - most importantly - it is established. As of today, the only possible and realistic alternative to shifting Canada away from fossil fuel towards a renewable energy source is hydro.

Me in 2019, working as a construction labourer on the intake tunnels at the Site C Hydro Dam in Fort St. John, BC.

The Solution that Holds Water

Here is a fact that may not come as a surprise for you: Canada’s politicians are conflicted. Our nation’s leaders recognize climate change as an issue, but there is no clear consensus in sight on Parliament Hill. The Trudeau carbon tax is an entirely separate topic for debate, but it does nothing to sufficiently move Canada away from fossil fuels towards renewable energy production.

Hydro is the largest electricity producer in Canada, accounting for 60.2% of the nation’s electricity. Canada ranks third in the world in hydroelectricity production (behind China and Brazil), and seventh in the world in renewable energy production. Compared to other nations, our renewable energy production is well above average. Congratulations. However, the fear of climate change has only grown larger and demands to provide solutions have followed. Everyone agrees that in order to tackle climate change, Canada needs to produce more renewable energy. Hydroelectricity projects are a crucial component in transitioning Canada away from fossil fuels.

So, why don’t we build more? Well, to put it bluntly, hydro dams are unpopular. Unpopular might even be an understatement. Tens of thousands of Canadians actively oppose ongoing hydro projects and protest any calls for new developments. Hydroelectric dams arguably serve as some of the most controversial projects in Canada, primarily due to their detrimental impact on Indigenous lands, territories, resources, and skyrocketing costs.

Canadian politicians have recognized this unpopularity and, as a result, hydroelectricity production has remained nearly flat. Since 2006, hydroelectricity production has only increased by a 0.51% compounded annual growth rate.

Are We to Follow the Sun and the Wind?

So, what should Canada do now? How do we phase off fossil fuels and sustain renewable energy? One may be asking themselves: “what about solar and wind energy?” Both solar and wind energy are minuscule in the electricity production industry, only producing 0.5% and 4.3% of our nation’s electricity respectively. Although much more popular than hydroelectricity, solar and wind have more pressing problems of their own, which has prevented them from reaching nationwide scale and significance.

A significant benefit of hydroelectricity is its reliability. In contrast to intermittent sources of renewable energy such as wind and solar, hydroelectric plants can produce electricity on demand and are recognized as system management assets capable of ensuring reliable supply. Solar and wind energy projects are variable, as they can only produce energy when the sun is shining, and the wind is blowing. Recall the notorious Simpson’s episode when Homer decides to power his house entirely from one wind turbine, and forces Bart to manually spin the turbine whenever the wind dies down.

Energy analysts find it challenging to project the rate of growth of wind and solar and the rate at which those technologies would become cost-competitive or cheaper than other sources of renewable power. Sure, there are select nations in the world whose leaders proudly boast that a significant portion of their electricity comes from solar and wind renewables. But at what cost? Denmark, for example, proudly publicizes that 48% of its electricity production is sourced from wind turbines. Does this automatically mean that a wind-dependent nation is possible? Not exactly. For starters, Denmark has the same population size as British Columbia, with a much more closely populated radius. The reason Denmark is able to deploy so many wind turbines is because it can easily export excess wind electricity to neighboring countries — at a high cost: Denmark today has the most expensive electricity in Europe. The same story applies to solar. While Germany has deployed some of the most solar projects in the world, its carbon emissions have remained unchanged for a decade while its electricity has become the second most expensive in Europe.

Where can we find the most cost-efficient energy prices? Other nations such as Norway, Brazil, and Costa Rica have almost entirely decarbonized their electricity supplies with the use of hydroelectricity alone. Although hydroelectricity has a bad reputation for its significant land impacts to dam up large amounts of water, solar and wind projects are not entirely innocent either. Solar panels, for example, create 200 to 300 times more hazardous waste than nuclear plants. To make matters worse, many nations, including Canada, have little to zero regulation as to how retired panels should be recycled or safely contained. Furthermore, the land size required to build such solar and wind farms for such an insignificant production of Canada’s electricity is immense and has had devastating impacts on rare and threatened wildlife. It is just not scalable.

We are not to forget that crown corporations that produce the majority of Canadian electricity, such as Hydro One and BC Hydro, are businesses too - they will always choose the most cost-efficient option for their economies of scale. The question is not, “what is the best renewable?” Instead, the question is if we are to move off fossil fuels, “which renewables should we pick up?” Moreover, the answer, at this point, when looking from a pure efficiency scalable and realistic approach, is hydro. Of course, solar and wind have potential, but sadly their technology at this point is nowhere near as scalable to power the demands of an entire nation.

Nothing is Perfect

Hydroelectricity is not perfect, but when is anything ever? Indeed, hydroelectricity has problems of its own. For starters, it is not 100% green. When a new dam is constructed, and the riverway is flooded, the trees and plantation in the flood zone eventually rot and emit carbon and methane into the atmosphere. A natural force of mother nature simply expedited by the dam. This process usually occurs for twenty years after a new dam is constructed. Every hydro project today has plans to be operational for at least 75 years (for example, Site C Dam in British Columbia estimates 130 years). Therefore, once the twenty-year period is over, the project is ultimately carbon neutral. However, even during this twenty-year carbon-emitting phase, these natural emissions can never come close to exceeding the emissions of fossil fuels, proving it to be a far greener alternative.

Hydro dams also release a chemical when the land is flooded; the water brings naturally occurring mercury from the soil into contact with water-borne bacteria that transform it into the neurotoxin methylmercury. Based on studies commissioned by the University of British Columbia, the actual impact on area residents will be slim to none.

When weighing the benefits of a new hydro project, we should also consider the social implications. As of January 2020, there are three hydroelectric projects currently under construction in Canada: Site C dam in British Columbia, Labrador’s Muskrat Falls, and Manitoba’s Keeyask dam. All three of these projects are opposed and protested by the Indigenous peoples across the nation. Canada’s former Minister of Natural Resources, Amarjeet Sohi, wrote about industry efforts to build partnerships with Indigenous communities and create long-term economic opportunities. To summarize, if the provincial and federal governments do not receive the surrounding Indigenous peoples’ agreements, they are technically not allowed to construct the dam, abiding by the long-standing treaties. However, for all three of these dams, the government started construction long before any conflict was resolved in court. By the looks of it, the government does not care about the court’s decision at all. The only thing that politicians do care about is the view of these projects among Canadians. If Canadians oppose it, they will oppose it. If Canadians approve, they will approve. After all, politicians are merely playing a popularity contest. The court does not have a vote come election time.

Spillway and penstocks at the Site C Hydro Dam

Canada’s oxymoron begins here, they are conflicted with the facts. Politicians who have power over new hydroelectricity projects only care about the project’s view among the majority of Canadians. Rarely do politicians consider the economic benefits of renewable energy sources associated with these projects if it jeopardizes their chances of reelection. That’s politics.

In fact, the United Nations has instructed Canada to suspend construction of the Site C dam on B.C.’s Peace River until the project obtains the “free, prior and informed consent” of Indigenous peoples. These matters are pressing. Both the federal and B.C. governments have pledged to uphold the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which states that resource projects like the Site C dam must have the free, prior and informed consent of affected Indigenous communities. At the end of the day, this means payouts. Manitoba Hydro, for instance, has paid $169 million to First Nations who will be impacted by the project and is expected to pay out another $100 million for the Keeyask dam.

Hydro dams do indeed hurt Indigenous families. While the adverse effects of colonization and forced acculturation on the region’s Indigenous populations in project areas around the Keeyask dam and Site C dam have been well documented; broken families, widespread substance abuse, domestic violence and endemic poverty among them. Politicians have recognized this, and instead of offering support and social programs to those affected by the specific dams, they simply pay them off and vow to cancel any future dams for the time being (until the tensions blow over). Again, a popularity contest.

A Conflict of Objectives

For politicians to successfully weigh the benefits of a new hydro project against the social and environmental implications, they must look at the numbers and organize their objectives. It is not just the Canadian government; rather, politicians across the world. The United Nations, for example, was the main force behind the Paris Climate Agreement to reduce fossil fuel emissions and transition over to renewable energy. The same United Nations that is putting pressure on Canada to cancel specific hydro projects, such as the Site C Dam, because of the social implications among nearby residents and Indigenous peoples. How can a nation possibly achieve full renewable energy production with such conflicting objectives? Again, hydro is not perfect, our nation’s energy industry is not perfect, but it is merely the hand of cards that we have been dealt. We are obligated to make the most out of it.

If politicians are serious about their campaign promises to tackle climate change, they must be willing to walk the walk. Canada currently has an installed hydro capacity of 78,000 megawatts and can produce 160,000 megawatts based on location size. Approximately 475 hydroelectric generating plants across the country produce an average of 355 terawatt-hours per year — one terawatt hour represents enough electricity to heat and power 40,000 houses.

This is good news considering that both Canada and the United States are looking for ways to reduce carbon emissions to meet GHG emission reduction targets. With ~ 60% of U.S. electricity still being generated from coal and gas-powered plants, Canada’s clean, renewable hydropower is an increasingly attractive option for border states. In fact, Canada is already a net exporter of electricity to the U.S. and plans for increasing its exports south of the border are underway. Right now, both Vermont and New Hampshire have established renewable energy goals, with imported Canadian hydroelectricity already representing a significant portion of the power supply.

Harnessing the Running Water

Hydro is our most efficient option as it converts over 90% of available energy into electricity. By comparison, the best fossil fuel power plants in Canada operate at approximately 60% efficiency. Hydropower facilities have a very long service life, which can be extended indefinitely, and further improved. Some operating facilities in Canada are 100 years and older. This makes for long-lasting, affordable electricity, which has the power to adequately address Canada’s goal to become a 100% renewable electricity nation.

Global energy consumption is increasing at an annual compounded growth rate of 1.8% per year. Given the long life of hydroelectricity facilities, politicians must also consider the future electricity demands ten years, 25 years, and even 100 years from today, in order to successfully reach our renewable energy goals.

Besides the long-term benefits of fighting climate change associated with hydroelectricity, how does it benefit the “average Joe” Canadian? Over the next twenty years, if Canadian politicians decide to pursue hydro as the primary source of electricity, it will add ~$125 billion of investments into the Canadian economy, creating more than 1 million jobs.

Intake tunnels at the Site C Hydro Dam, partially built by yours truly

To Build, or Not to Build

The oxymoron in the Canadian energy industry is more significant than ever. Politicians do not know what to do. They are conflicted with their current objectives. Yes, they want to fight climate change. Yes, they want to become a fully renewable energy country. Yes, they want to protect the environment and wildlife from the floods associated with dams. Yes, they want to respect Indigenous peoples’ rights to their land ownership as outlined by the treaties. They want to do it all. Nevertheless, have you seen any politician say how they are going to do it all?

As sad as it may be, their conflicting agendas to pursue all objectives has resulted in accomplishing none of them. Our nation is not on target with our carbon reduction goals. Indigenous peoples are currently extremely upset with the government. Every day there is a new protest. And sadly, climate change is still a threat to our nation’s environment that is increasing year over year.

As of today, there have not been any large-scale hydroelectricity projects announced. In fact, in the last decade, hydroelectricity growth has remained relatively flat, as we wait for the current three major projects to finish. Of course, there are ideas for new projects, as ideas are everlasting. Nevertheless, given the current oxymoron and conflict residing in our nation’s politicians, it is unlikely that any of these ideas for new hydroelectricity developments will see fruition. Politicians must clear their heads and decide how they will accomplish these goals to produce renewable energy and weigh the associated costs. If not hydroelectricity, then what renewable?

To quote Hamlet’s soliloquy: to build, or not to build? If not hydro, then what else? It is a race against the clock. With concerns about climate change and sustainable energy increasing by the day, will politicians be able to accomplish these practices in time? If they keep waiting around and twiddling their thumbs, it may be too late to prevent the costs associated with climate change. Politicians need to stop waiting and start acting – a line that nearly every Canadian has heard. How are we going to transition our energy towards renewables? After all, if they wait too long, the ship to properly prevent climate change may have sunk. It is unlikely that any solution at that point may be strong enough to pull the ship up from the bottom of the ocean.

Sources

• National Geographic
• PWC
• Deloitte
• Natural Resources Canada
• CBC
• Statistics Canada
• CAPP
• Hydro One
• Canada Energy Regulator
• Canadian Geographic
• Toronto Star
• Centre for Strategic & International Studies
• Hydro Quebec
• International Institute for Sustainable Development