[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Archive Top]
RE: [cdn-nucl-l] Canadians 'ignorant' of energy facts
Hi Paul,
Yeah, I figured by the "ener2000" name of the NRCan set of graphs that
the last column was the year 2000... You're right, it's 1998. I don't
know if the nuclear bar is as high as 1,000, though... That’s stretching
it :) Ahh, I found the actual figures:
www.nrcan.gc.ca/es/ener2000/pdf3/VIEWDATA/Series3.01.PDF
Hmm, the mystery deepens. On the second page, it does say that nuclear
supplied 780 Petajoules out of a total of 15,564 (5.01%) but that's
using a conversion ratio of 11.564 MJ/kWh. Using the also mentioned 3.6
MJ/kWh, Morgan's figure appears - 243 Petajoules (1.56%). I think that
the first figure is used for nuclear steam, while the second at
(3.6/11.564 = 0.311 or 31.1% efficiency) is the electrical thermal
conversion. It does appear that it is the lower figure used in the
total they quote (5,013 oil, 621 lpg, 6,135 natgas, 1,801 coal, 1,183
hydro, 243 nuclear, 569 other for a total of 15,565 - probably with some
round off excluded). I'm not sure why they would even mention the
11.564 MJ/kWh theoretical conversion figure though - apart from some
space heating that used to be at Bruce (it was sourced from Bruce A,
though, so after the A side was shut down, they built an oil plant to
perform the same function... Go figure), I don't think nuclear steam
(maybe a couple 100 kWh's worth?) is used at all to my knowledge. The
chart is 'energy production' though so perhaps that's why, as Morgan
said - every lost bit of heat included. I suppose the other fossil
figures are theoretical energy production rates as well (?)
Now the BP figures for 'consumption' I would expect to be different from
the above 'production' figures. You're right though, Paul, that must be
where the NP figure came from - good call.
So assuming this is their source of info, the chart (again, Primary
Energy Consumption, 2001) also says the following (this is interesting):
Oil - 88 MTOE (million tonnes oil equivalent) (32.05%)
Natural Gas - 65.4 (23.82%)
Coal - 28.9 (10.52%)
Nuclear - 17.4 (6.34%)
Hydroelectric - 75.0 (27.31%)
Total of 274.6 (100%)
Other (missing from stated total) - 17.3 (6.30%)
Again, from the article:
"In reality, only about 7% of Canada's energy comes from hydro-electric
generation. According to the federal government, 41% of Canada's power
comes from natural gas, 30% from oil, 12% from coal, 6% from nuclear
power and 4% from renewable sources such as wind and solar power."
Discrepancies abound! (though nuclear fits well)... BP says that
hydroelectric supplies 27.31% of Canada's 2001 primary energy
consumption - far more than the 7% that the Post says, and is the focus
of the entire article. NRCan does say though, that hydroelectric
provides (1,183 PJ/15,564 PJ) 7.60% of the share of primary energy
production...
Something ain't right... It must be late :)
Going back to 'electricity', though, another interesting graph at NRCan
is at:
http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/es/ener2000/pdf3/VIEWDATA/Series6.05.PDF
"Net electricity production by plant type" - raw electrons, 1998
figures:
Hydro - 327.054 TWh (60.27%)
Conventional thermal (fossil fuel) - 148.164 TWh (27.30%)
Nuclear - 67.463 TWh (12.43%)
Total - 542.681 TWh (100%)
Note, no 'other'
Hydro's up at over 60%! That's almost the 78% of people surveyed in the
National Post article that THOUGHT 'power' comes from hydroelectricity!
It begs the question, was the difference between electricity and energy
made clear when the question was asked??? If not, it'd be my assumption
that people would assume electricity when they hear 'power', even when
they hear 'energy' - that's what we're charged for from the power or
'hydro' company, after all. Talk about confusing - perhaps the
government shouldn't be the ones carrying out surveys of this type of
thing...
If I've made any errors above, though, please point 'em out... If
they're close to being right, though, I think we should make a concerted
effort to try to get the National Post's attention to interpretation of
all of these terms and how the survey was likely not well carried out.
Thoughts?
Adam
P.s. And we wonder why we have so much trouble trying to communicate
this stuff to the public... Wow.
-----Original Message-----
From: cdn-nucl-l-admin@informer2.cis.McMaster.CA
[mailto:cdn-nucl-l-admin@informer2.cis.McMaster.CA] On Behalf Of Paul
Wilson
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 2:41 AM
To: Adam McLean; 'mclis_post (E-mail)'
Subject: RE: [cdn-nucl-l] Canadians 'ignorant' of energy facts
Hi Adam
If you look at BP's own charts for 2001, however, you will see that on
the
tab for "primary energy consumption by fuel" (your reference), Canada
consumed a total of 274.6 MToe of which 17.4 was nuclear = 6.3%.
Similarly, the way I read pg 23 of the NRCan's doc for 1998 (I don't see
2000 on the reference you provided-hmmm), the total production was about
16000 PJ of which about 1000 PJ (+/- 100 PJ error reading the graph)
were
nuclear = 6.25% +/- 0.6% (or so).
As Morgan points out, these numbers talk about energy consumed and not
energy delivered. Obviously you can cut the total energy delivered by
nuclear by a factor of about 3 to get the "useful" energy delivered.
All of this seems to match the 6% from the post....
Paul
At 11:39 PM 9/24/2002, Adam McLean wrote:
>Hi Guys,
>
>Though 'energy information' is valuable to show just how much more raw
>energy we use than electricity in the home, I think there is still a
>discrepancy that Morgan and Mike are trying to demonstrate. The
National
>Post (government source unknown...) says that nuclear's share is 6% -
>first they say 'energy', then they say 'power' - a little misleading to
>say the least. NRCan says that nuclear's share of energy was just 1.6%
in
>1999. Form the NRCan web
>page,
><http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/es/ener2000/pdf/STATIS~1.PDF>www.nrcan.gc.ca/es
/ener2000/pdf/STATIS~1.PDF
>that seems to show nuclear (electrons plus nuclear steam) a little
higher
>in 2000 (page 23 - just a hard-to-read graph, no solid numbers) but
still
>not 4 times higher than in 1999. Ben and Jeremy agree nuclear's had a
13%
>share of electricity production in the recent years. Neither indicates
>where a figure of 6% might have came from...
>
>BP has some more information that may help out, though. A really
>fantastic appendix of worldwide information can be found at:
><http://www.bp.com/downloads/1086/bp_stats_history.xls>www.bp.com/downl
oads/1086/bp_stats_history.xls
>Data on EVERYTHING energy and electricity related - a great resource.
I
>highly recommend setting a 'favorite' to BP's world energy statistical
>review site at:
><http://www.bp.com/centres/energy2002/>www.bp.com/centres/energy2002/
>
>It says that in 1999, Canada's total electricity consumption was 577
>TWh. Using Morgan's figure of nuclear production of 69.5 TWh (BP
quotes
>73.5 TWh for Canada in 1999 but I'd tend to trust Morgan :)), that puts
it
>at 12.05% (12.74% with BP's figure). In 2000, it was 12.03% (72.8 /
605
>TWh) and in 2001, 13.18% (76.7 / 582 TWh) - all figures we're
comfortable with.
>
>So the question is, if the NRCan figures for energy are correct, and
>BP's
>figures (which jive with Morgan, who follows the month-by-month reactor
>production in Canada better than anyone else) are right for
electricity,
>then who in the Federal Government is telling Bill Curry of the
National
>Post that nuclear's share - whether energy or electricity - is 6%?
>
>Adam
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: cdn-nucl-l-admin@informer2.cis.McMaster.CA
>[mailto:cdn-nucl-l-admin@informer2.cis.McMaster.CA] On Behalf Of
Dukelow,
>James S Jr
>Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 11:26 PM
>To: 'Rouben, Ben'; mclis_post (E-mail)
>Subject: RE: [cdn-nucl-l] Canadians 'ignorant' of energy facts
>
>I think we have a serious case of "read the question before you answer"
>here.
>
>The National Post article said:
>
>"In reality, only about 7% of Canada's energy comes from hydro-electric
>generation. According to the federal government, 41% of Canada's power
>comes from natural gas, 30% from oil, 12% from coal, 6% from nuclear
>power and 4% from renewable sources such as wind and solar power."
>
>Everyone on this list, except Morgan Brown, seems to be talking about
>electricity. Do your cars roll and planes fly on electricity? Are
your
>homes heated by electricity?
>
>If you take electricity's fraction of total energy usage into account,
>6%
>for nuclear looks about right.
>
>Best regards.
>
>Jim Dukelow
>Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
>Richland, WA
><mailto:jim.dukelow@pnl.gov>jim.dukelow@pnl.gov
>
>These comments are mine and have not been reviewed and/or approved by
>my
>management or by the U.S. Department of Energy.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Rouben, Ben [mailto:roubenb@aecl.ca]
>Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 7:16 PM
>To: mclis_post (E-mail)
>Subject: FW: [cdn-nucl-l] Canadians 'ignorant' of energy facts
>
>To my knowledge nuclear-generated electricity has been ~16-17% of all
>electricity generated in Canada (in recent years).
>
>
>Benjamin Rouben, FCNS
>Manager, Reactor Core Physics
>AECL Sheridan Park
>Tel: 905-823-9060 x 4550
>Fax: 905-822-0567
>e-mail: roubenb@aecl.ca
><<mailto:roubenb@aecl.ca>mailto:roubenb@aecl.ca>
>Cell: 905-302-2054
>-----Original Message-----
>From: English, Michael [mailto:englishm@aecl.ca]
>Sent: 2002/mm/24 5:36 PM
>To: Canadian Nuclear Discussion List
>Subject: RE: [cdn-nucl-l] Canadians 'ignorant' of energy facts
>
>I can't imagine that the Post doesn't have their facts straight, which
>leaves me a little confused on this topic...
>
>It's my understanding (and Jeremy Whitlock's as well apparently) that
>nuclear power doesn't account for 6%, or even 7%, of electricity
>generation in Canada, but that it accounts for 14% (at least it did in
>1997) - see Canadian Nuclear FAQ, point B.2
>
>Has the contribution made by nuclear really gone down by half? Has
>there
>been another whole bunch of capacity come online in the last 5 years
that
>would lower nuclear's contribution? Anyone have any thoughts on this?
>
>Mike
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Brown, Morgan [mailto:brownmj@aecl.ca]
>Sent: Tuesday September 24, 2002 4:48 PM
>To: Canadian Nuclear Discussion List
>Subject: RE: [cdn-nucl-l] Canadians 'ignorant' of energy facts
>
>In 1999, according to the Energy Statistics Handbook of Natural
>Resources
>Canada, Canada consumed the following primary energy in petajoules
>Oil 5420 (35.5%)
>Nat gas 6189 (40.5%)
>Coal 1589 (10.4%)
>Nuclear 250 (1.6%)
>Hydroelectricity 1232 (8.1%)
>Other 609 (4.0%)
>
>The problem with the above is that it's hard to convert from primary
>energy to useful energy. 250 PJ of nuclear energy is equivalent to
>69,500,000 MWh, which is what Canadian reactors delivered to the grids
in
>1999 (i.e. net electricity). That is easy to compare to
>hydroelectricity. But coal includes steel making, and natural gas
>includes heating, as does oil. And then there is automotive use. All
>complex to convert to a basic primary consumption.
>By comparison (BP Amoco Statistical Review of World Energy), in 1999
>Canada consumed the following primary energy in Millions of Tonnes of
Oil
>Equivalent:
>Oil 83.0
>Nat gas 64.3
>Coal 31.9
>Nuclear 19.0
>Hydroelectricity 29.6
>(they don't list "other")
>
>Note that hydro is only 1.56 times that of nuclear as opposed to 4.93
>in
>the NRCan report. This is what I would expect from comparing hydro and
>nuclear electricity generated in that year. It appears that the BP
Amoco
>numbers include ALL the thermal heat generated (and lost) by the energy
>sources, whereas the NRCan numbers may be in terms of useful final
energy.
>Note, however, that the National Post article said :
>"In reality, only about 7% of Canada's energy comes from hydro-electric
>generation. According to the federal government, 41% of Canada's power
>comes from natural gas, 30% from oil, 12% from coal, 6% from nuclear
>power and 4% from renewable sources such as wind and solar power."
>
>The "renewable" sector is by almost entirely wood - pulp liquor and
>wood
>chips being burned. Wind and solar would contribute very little.
>- Morgan
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Adam McLean
>[<mailto:adam.mclean@utoronto.ca>mailto:adam.mclean@utoronto.ca]
>Sent: Tuesday September 24, 2002 1:09 AM
>To: Canadian Nuclear Discussion List
>Subject: [cdn-nucl-l] Canadians 'ignorant' of energy facts
>
>Posted in the National Post on September 16, 2002 and at:
>www.nationalpost.com/search/site/story.asp?id=39787A0A-8ACC-4666-8E39-2
>9
>8354C51DB8
>Just a single mention of nuclear but interesting results from the
>poll...
>
>Adam
>
>---------------
>
>Canadians 'ignorant' of energy facts
>Government polls: Lack of knowledge may hamper efforts to cut
>consumption
>
>Bill Curry
>National Post
>Monday, September 16, 2002
>ADVERTISEMENT
>
>OTTAWA - Canadians are either "ignorant" or "in denial" about how the
>energy they use is produced, with 78% thinking it comes from relatively
>clean hydro-electric power.
>
>The figure comes from one of three new government polls that found
>Canadians are unaware of government programs set up to reduce energy
>consumption and have little interest in the issue overall.
>
>In reality, only about 7% of Canada's energy comes from hydro-electric
>generation. According to the federal government, 41% of Canada's power
>comes from natural gas, 30% from oil, 12% from coal, 6% from nuclear
>power and 4% from renewable sources such as wind and solar power.
>
>The recent public opinion studies show the government faces an uphill
>battle with Canadians as it attempts to reduce energy consumption in
>order to meet Canada's commitments under the Kyoto protocol. Jean
>Chrétien, the Prime Minister, has announced that Parliament will vote
>on ratifying the international agreement, which would commit Canada to
>reduce greenhouse gas emissions significantly.
>
>Mr. Chrétien has since suggested however, that the government may
>strive for lower reduction targets than are actually in the agreement.
>
>Regardless of the targets, reducing greenhouse gas emissions is an
>increasing priority for the government. But according to a recent
>government poll, Canadians continue to have a poor understanding of
>energy issues and are not really concerned about consumption.
>
>The survey of 1,502 adult Canadians was conducted in February and March
>of this year. It found Canadians are more likely to be concerned about
>the cost of energy, with 41% saying they are "very concerned." The
>number is higher than those who say they are very concerned about
>environmental damage from energy production (31%) or damage from energy
>use (31%). In all three categories, Canadians are slightly less
>concerned than they were in a similar poll in 1993.
>
>The survey was conducted by Decima Research for Natural Resources
>Canada and is a follow-up to similar polls in 1997 and 1993.
>
>Among the most significant changes in opinion since 1997 is the growing
>number of Canadians who feel the government should introduce tax
>incentives to promote a reduction in energy consumption. It is now the
>favoured option of 29%, ahead of all other options, such as education
>campaigns (27%), further scientific research to improve energy
>efficiency (19%) or tougher appliance standards (17%). While Canadians
>are divided on the means of encouraging more environmentally friendly
>behaviour, 84% continue to believe the government should take an active
>role in promoting energy conservation among consumers.
>
>The study shows an increasing concern about the supply of energy, with
>23% saying they are very concerned, a 7% jump from 1993. According to
>Decima's analysis, the concern may be fuelled in part by the emerging
>issue of exporting Canadian energy to the U.S., with close to half
>(46%) saying they are very concerned about that issue, primarily in
>Ontario and Western Canada. Most Canadians said environmental damage is
>caused primarily by vehicle use and factories as opposed to consuming
>electricity.
>
>"This can be explained, at least in part, by the fact that many
>Canadians do not understand how their electricity is generated, with
>most (78%) holding the belief that their homes are powered by
>relatively 'clean' hydro-electric power," states the report. "Whether
>this is a function of ignorance or denial, it is clear that, unlike
>vehicle pollution, the environmental consequences of electric power
>generation have not yet been firmly established in the public's
>consciousness."
>
>The survey recommends the department address the public's declining
>view of the resource sector's contribution to the economy and increase
>awareness of the federal government's role in promoting science and
>technology.
>
>It also suggests the government continue to focus on increasing
>Canadians' awareness of energy issues, especially the impacts of their
>own consumption.
>
>According to two other recently released public opinion reports
>prepared for Natural Resources Canada, Canadians are not aware of
>government programs to raise awareness of energy consumption.
>
>A May 31 report summarizing six focus groups made up of elementary
>school teachers and students found very few had heard of a teaching kit
>called "The Calendar Club" created by the Office of Energy Efficiency
>at Natural Resources Canada.
>
>In June, the Office of Energy Efficiency received another focus group
>study that found very limited knowledge of the government's "Energy
>Star" program, which places stickers on appliances that meet government
>standards for energy efficiency.
>
>"Generally, energy efficiency was not a top-level purchase factor, nor
>an important one," the report found. Focus group participants said that
>when buying an appliance, they were more concerned about price,
>quality, features, brand name, reliability, warranty and after-purchase
>delivery.
>
>"Understanding of energy efficiency as a concept was poor," it states.
>When asked about the advantages of using energy-efficient products, the
>participants said they would save money in the long-term, but "not big
>savings." They also stated it would "help the environment -- but most
>are not sure how, except that 'future generations' would somehow
>benefit."
>
>bcurry@nationalpost.com
>
>© Copyright 2002 National Post
>
>_______________________________________________
>cdn-nucl-l mailing list
>cdn-nucl-l@mailman.McMaster.CA
><http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/cdn-nucl-l>http://mailman.
>McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/cdn-nucl-l
>
-- --------------------------------------------------------- --
Paul P H Wilson UW-Madison Engineering Physics
Assistant Professor 1500 Engineering Dr
wilsonp@engr.wisc.edu Madison, WI 53706
608/263-0807 fax:608/263-4499 http://www.engr.wisc.edu/ep
Yahoo! Messenger: gonuke WI Inst. for Nuclear Systems
http://www.cae.wisc.edu/~wilsonp Fusion Technology Inst.
Contributing to the joy and improvement
of all those around me
_______________________________________________
cdn-nucl-l mailing list
cdn-nucl-l@mailman.McMaster.CA
http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/cdn-nucl-l