Why Light Bulb Bans don't save Coal or CO2 emissions

Why Light Bulb Bans don't save Coal or CO2 emissions

The incandescent ban and pushed CFL switchovers, as well covered by Paul here in the forums,
has its main campaign origins by Greenpeace and others (happily latched on to by profit seeking manufacturers!)
asserting that switching light bulbs helps save the planet.

As the Greenpeace image says...



The environmental argumentation is also behind the 2012 UN "en.lighten" campaign with large World Bank and intergovernmental funding,
allowing Philips and Osram to offload their otherwise unwanted CFLs in developing countries, that I might come back to later.

Coal,
is by far the main fossil fuel environmental concern with electricity use,
with around twice the CO2 emissions of either natural gas or oil in equivalent electricity generation.

Whatever the relevancy or not of CO2 emissions:
Light bulbs don't burn coal, and they don't release CO2 gas.
Power plants might - and they might not.
And if they do, then coal and its emissions can be treated in various ways.

Effectively the same coal gets burned regardless of whether your light bulb is on or off:
Relevant domestic lighting is mostly used from 5pm onwards.
Coal plants are on all the time at basically the same output level.
Slow and cheap.
They can't really be turned down at night, as it takes too long to power up in the morning,
and to some extent this is true of other base loading power, like nuclear energy.
Hence much fuel burned that noone uses. Hence cheap electricity at
night. Hence the lighting causing no energy use and no CO2 or mercury
emissions, that would not have occured anyway.

Even at peak times (centering around 5-7 pm temperate zones),
limited coal use and emissions are caused relative to any electricity used.
Peak times brings on quicker responding electricity generation, such
as gas or hydro powered turbines, because of heating, cooking stoves
and kettles coming on (rather than any lighting).
Therefore at such times, the light bulbs proportionally use sources with much less emissions than from coal.

So the idea that even (generously, see US Dept of Energy etc stat refs http://ceolas.net/#li171x) the 1-2% of grid electricity saved
from banning the incandescents translates into 1-2% less of any fuel burned, does not hold.
It may seem tongue-in-cheek to suggest that no coal savings at all apply:
But in a context of just 30-35% efficient plants overcoming 6-8% grid transmission losses (USA, UK and elsewhere) it is in practice true.

But of course, it is much more fun (and profitable) to indoctrinate kids to switch bulbs to save the planet!

As it happens, CO2 and other gas emissions may increase by switching away from incandescent light bulbs,
especially in cooler climates, as shown by Canadian, Finnish etc research, independently of one another (http://ceolas.net/#li11x)
That is, when the electric light bulb heat from a low carbon emission (like nuclear, hydro, solar, wind) power plant source,
is replaced by CO2 emitting heat fuel (like coal, gas, oil).

More about the deceptive arguments behind banning light bulbs,
with a referenced rundown of why the arguments don't hold
http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/p/deception-behind-banning-light-bulbs.html
.

so, your argument is that we should use as much energy as we can at night, because it is being produced anyway (net emissions remain the same). And electricity use has no bearing on actual CO2 produced or coal used.

That seems like a good argument in favor of electric cars...

Forget electric cars. Most people who live off-grid live too far from cities so that the limited range of electric cars is sufficient. We ourselves could not make one round trip to go shopping given the range of the chevy volt. There is no place to stop and plug in along the way. In fact there is no cell phone coverage for much of the road if we had a problem. The major problem with plug-in-to-recharge is the limited capacity of existing buildings and residential power distribution.
I recently saw an article about a guy living in a city condo being forbidden to plug in his electric car because the other condo owners objected to the extra electric load. If even half the drivers had electric cars we would see a meltdown of the existing distribution system.

I for one object to much of the political bumf associated with so called energy savings because I have seen better alternatives used elsewhere in the industrialized world but not in North America. The truth is, most of the politicians are beholden to the heavy campaign contributors that got them elected.
Naturally this results in the politicians leaning towards business that stands to gain from some solutions instead of others.
The discussion concerning heat from old style lightbulbs only touches the tip of the iceberg.
The bank took the wood heated house I was getting set upfor off-grid. We ended up in a mobile lacking any means of heating with wood. Not permitted.
Friends advised us to not connect the gas heater as being too expensive. Instead they recommended electric radiant heat. I was skeptical but proved to myself by using a Kill-a-Watt meter that this was true. The secret was the RADIANT heat. recently I saw a blog on radiant heat that clearly explained why it worked better than ordinary space heating of any kind.. Sorry but I can't recall the link to website.
We tried using CFL bulbs but we got tired of the porch light never igniting when it got to be -30 below. The wife has had several bad falls in the dark on the snow and ice. I now need a walker so I rarely venture out in winter. But the lowered ligh level from CFL bulbs compared to real bulbs has caused me problems indoors. My old eyes don't see like when I was 20 years old.
Europe has been moving passengers and cargo using electric trains so why don't they do that here. Supposedly vehicle fuel consumption is a big issue that vis driving electric car development. Cargo trucks burns as much or more fuel than light weight passenger cars.
Power generation with thermal plants is far more advanced and pollution free than comparable North american power plants. WHY? The main obstacle to adopting similar designs is because it's 'not invented here'.

the title of these threads should be "anything to do with any environmental group is baloney, and I know better than everyone else"

Are you really saying that fossil fuels are harmless?

Ignoring the amount of power the fossil fuel industry has bought over the last few decades is completely disingenuous. Every point you make in your post is undermined by that omission.

They've had AT LEAST 40 years to switch gears. Im not willing to see any more public land scarred by that industry.

Peter, you are correct that base-load plants do not turn-down at night, but you are omitting all the load-following coal plants that will turn-down as low as 20% of full-load. These are the plants that are affected by using less electricity at home.

You also mention that coal emissions can be treated. Well, they are, but there's still that pesky CO2 issue that no plant is scrubbing. I've participated in the development of a CO2 capture technology, specifically designed for the coal-fired power industry; the technology is not ready for prime-time, and you will have serious issue with its current cost of about 80 cents per dollar of electricity (meaning, if you currently pay $1/unit electricity, then with CO2 capture, you'd pay $1.80/unit).

I generally dislike picking apart others' opinions, but you made yours public and it's filled with fallacy and misinformation.

Pete I don't know if you are replying to mine or Peter's post. However I was making the point that smart engineers in other places like Europe have found ways to reduce emissions from thermal plants. I have spoken to them and I have also witnessed what happens when North American Engineers are invited to hear how its done. Their attitude or at least that of their boss is since its not invented here we are not interested. That pretty well sums it up.
We live with 100% Hydro-electric power here so I know our own power consumption is as clean as possible. It also happens to be the cheapest rate in North America at 8.5 cents per kilowatt hour.

I also know there are many more environmentally friendly processes that do not contribute nearly as much to pollution.Methane is 3X as bad a greenhouse gas as CO2 yet there is virtually no abatement programs in place. This doesn't make sense since this gas can be used as a fuel to reduce use of coal.
A methane digester was built where I used to live. It is a huge economic sucess and all of the output is exported across the border to a thermal power plant in WA where much of the electrical power output is reportedly sent to CA. The plant is 100% fuelled by natural gas.

arild jensen wrote:I for one object to much of the political bumf associated with so called energy savings because I have seen better alternatives used elsewhere in the industrialized world but not in North America. The truth is, most of the politicians are beholden to the heavy campaign contributors that got them elected.
Naturally this results in the politicians leaning towards business that stands to gain from some solutions instead of others.

The discussion concerning heat from old style lightbulbs only touches the tip of the iceberg.
The bank took the wood heated house I was getting set upfor off-grid. We ended up in a mobile lacking any means of heating with wood. Not permitted.
Friends advised us to not connect the gas heater as being too expensive. Instead they recommended electric radiant heat. I was skeptical but proved to myself by using a Kill-a-Watt meter that this was true.
The secret was the RADIANT heat. recently I saw a blog on radiant heat that clearly explained why it worked better than ordinary space heating of any kind.. Sorry but I can't recall the link to website.

Thanks Arild also for the other interesting observations..

Yes the point is how end-user energy efficiency regulations make little sense
Apart from the choice issues, and apart from environmental issues with alternatives (as with light bulbs),
the suppposed energy savings are not there, for many reasons.
One simple reason is the rebound increase use of what effectively becomes cheaper energy,
as research referenced from Cambridge and Scottish research from the above site
So, fuel efficient cars are driven more (and public transport may be used less), electricity used more, etc

On the light bulb type effective radiant infra-red heat issue you mention, German research (Google trasnslation etc can be used)
http://www-user.rhrk.uni-kl.de/~kosack/forschung/?INFRAROT%26nbsp%3BSTRAHLUNGSHEIZUNG
The irony is that 95% heat of light bulb is ridiculed, albeit research proven as useful http://ceolas.net/#li6x
and of course any use with air conditioning cooling is optional and may still be preferred for light quality reasons
- while the 80% and 70% real heat waste of CFLs and LEDs is ignored, in their case internalized, to give a greater unpredictable fire risk, particularly with CFLs.

RE some commenters saying how "false" the post here is,
then underlying DOE data is also false, and coal plant administration can easily be checked with any relevant utility company.
Certainly some coal may be burned on account of lighting usage, but it is less than supposed from already small energy savings,
in the overall sense of really saving energy in power plant efficiency, grid distribution and alternative consumption
(including heating, refrigeration etc electricity use)
One may also say, regarding consumers paying for energy of which there is no future source shortage, including of environmentally friendly alternatives, that
"unnecessarily leaving a light bulb on is a waste of energy, the personal choice of what light bulb to use is not a waste of energy".

After my previous post I finally found the experiment I had mentioned and it was something Permies.com had posted. It is an experiment anyone can perform themselves. Why is it so difficult for politicians to apply logic to their decision making? I live in the north where -35 degree weather is common in winter.
The CFL bulbs available to us is often of poor quality and will not start in cold weather. Vancouver which is hundreds of kilometers south of here and in a temperate climate zone does not get such cold weather. Logically a limitation on bulb types could work better there than here.
Vancouver is one of the few places I know of that requires a fossil fuel fired booster generators for peak demand but only in winter. When I lived there I could see the steam plume from 10 kilometers away as I drove to work. I met operators from there at monthly engineering association meetings and talked to them.
When a large percentage of the population has to arise at O dark thirty to get to work naturally they turn on a light while getting breakfast so there you could argue there is some justification for a bulb replacement program.
When I met some of the university students shilling for BC Hydro and promoting the CFL bulbs I asked about other energy use reduction program.
I was greeted with a blank stare and the question " what programs?"
Apart from the hot water tank, the kitchen electric stove is the biggest energy consumer in a household not using electric heating.
By actual measurement I proved to myself that we could cook our food using less energy with countertop appliances than the traditional stove.
These appliances are engineered for fast easy food preparation. By coincidence they plug in and use only 120V not 220V . Preheat cycle is shorter which also means less energy. All heat produced is directed into the food not the room by the design of the appliance. This is more significant in summer than winter. According to my own watt meter which also measures accumulated watt hours, the same meal cooking consumes less energy that if the meal is prepared on the regular stove. If you are living off-grid the difference is very significant. I convinced a friend living off grid that his solar system could in fact support some of these countertop appliances. His wife is delighted because she was compelled to give up all her modern electric appliances when they first moved off grid.
My point of all this is there are smarter ways to use electricity than with politically motivated inane programs such as a wholesale conversion to toxic CFL that cost 10X as much as tungsten filament bulbs.

While we are on the subject of coal fired generators.
North America suffers from something called "not invented here". If you suggest to engineers that there is a better way to burn coal, they look at you with disbelief. If something is not invented her they are not interested in looking at it.
While working a trade show I got to talking to a dutch engineer who worked for a power company. He told me they burn 100 tons of coal per day plus an additional 100 tons of Canadian wood pellets. They pulverize the coal and wood pellets then burn the mixture in a fluidized bed combustion process. Emissions are greatly reduced to meet tough European standards. no reason this could not be done in North America.
If coal firing is so objectionable why don't they burn natural gas? Right now half the gas wells are capped off so the quantity on the market does not lower the market price according to one financial newletter I recently saw. This is supported by eye witness reports by drill rig workers coming home saying the wells are being capped and not used. The so called shortage is managed by energy companies more intent on maintaining excessive profit margins. Who really knows how much energy is stored in capped off well heads?
This is likely the beginning of a new thread but we are wasting a naturally occurring fuel resource that is a major source of greenhouse gases far worse than carbon dioxide. Scientists say methane gas is much worse than CO2 as a green house gas. Why not capture this gas and use it as fuel? Coal fired plant operators claim carbon sequestration is too expensive. Maybe so but capturing methane then burning it as fuel is cleaner than letting the methane simply escape.

I agree that consumers should have the choice to buy/use whatever light source suits their values, and that the government should not be regulating the light bulb supply. Peter, I don't know what energy source you are considering has no future shortage, but surely you are not talking about coal. Coal is a finite resource, albeit a very abundant resource here in the US.

Arlid, the US does have many circulating fluidized bed boilers used for power generation. They are typically used for burning lignite (a low BTU coal found predominately in the southern US) and other "waste" fuel sources such as wood chips, petroleum coke, etc. Also, there are many natural gas boilers in the US. In fact, there are quite a few coal-fired boilers being converted to natural gas combusters primarily due to new environmental regulations on the power industry. As far as carbon sequestration being too expensive, I think most of the population would agree that it is. As I mentioned earlier, there is an 80% cost increase just to capture the CO2, that does not include the cost of sequestration.

Aaron you just illustrated one aspect of American business modes. The public is never told the whole truth about anything. How then can they make a truly intelligent and informed decision? Although I currently live in Canada I was born in Copenhagen Denmark. Consequently I have never become Americanized. I tend to view most American sourced pronouncements with scepticism. During my extensive travels in North America I observed that what the government says and what is does is very different things.
Hopefully the people can counter this before it is too late. Where I currently live the local government has changed regulations to permit people to keep chickens even in towns. A step in the right direction. Nearly everyone has a small greenhouse in the backyard. Because we are so far from a big city people tend to think more in terms of self sufficiency.

Aaron Oakley wrote:I agree that consumers should have the choice to buy/use whatever light source suits their values, and that the government should not be regulating the light bulb supply. Peter, I don't know what energy source you are considering has no future shortage, but surely you are not talking about coal. Coal is a finite resource, albeit a very abundant resource here in the US.

...... there are quite a few coal-fired boilers being converted to natural gas combusters....as I mentioned earlier, there is an 80% cost increase just to capture the CO2, that does not include the cost of sequestration.

Thanks Aaron,
RE abundant future energy there's the sun, wind, perhaps nuclear fusion....
RE coal, as you say the gasification is one way to reduce emissions - so there's a way that can be done, regarding your first comment above
Certainly, the direct dealing with CO2 emissions is expensive and problematic as you say, I just mentioned it as something one should remember in an overall view.

I would myself belong to those who question the point of reducing CO2 emissions to deal with climate change,
but in any case it is (rightly or wrongly) also more politically correct at least in "green government" circles to denounce CO2 treatment of fossil fuels,
rather than switching fuels.
A guy in Georgia Tech developed in 2008 a CO2 (carbon) collection system for gasolene powered cars
http://www.gatech.edu/newsroom/release.html?nid=71443
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-9984648-48.html
- but he was apparently afterwards refused further research funds, he (or someone representing him) claimed, this was politically motivated,
in the alternative fuel efficiency and electric/hydrogen switching policies sought by federal government
- I can't find my original source for that, but as also seen on online search, nothing seems to have happened afterwards, at least that I could find...

Arild
(jeg har selv boet på Fredriksberg, lige i hjertet af København, en dejlig tid)

Re burning methane,
that's an interesting one, also given the apparently extensive sea deposits (clathrates, hydrates)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_clathrate
-admittedly may not be undergoing much release as greenhouse gases, but therefore also presumably easier to collect...

Re the light bulb heat issue,
interestingly well covered by Canadian research
( heat savings, and how CO2 emissions are increased rather than reduced by light bulb switchover)

Not least shown by BC Hydro themselves
"BC Hydro's own figures undercut environmental value of CFLs"
http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2011/01/27/bc-hydros-own-figures-undercut-environmental-value-of-cfls/
"To Switch or Not to Switch: A Critical Analysis of Canada's Ban on Incandescent Light Bulbs""
(Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto 2007-2008 ), by Professor Bryan Karney, Energy Scientist Michael Ivanco, and Graduate student Kevin Waher. article http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/346692
"Compact bulbs not as green as once thought"
findings by The Canadian National Research Council, Manitoba Hydro, and the University of Manitoba Physics Department:
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/compact_bulbs_not_as_green_as_once_thought-40835597.html

also Finland, UK, Iceland and other research, as per linking via the above post

Carbon capture seems to be the focus of most efforts at green house gas prevention. A long time ago I read that trees represented a huge carbon sink.
why is there not more effort at growing more trees?
Back in the fifties commercial green houses were adding CO2 to the interior of green houses because it yielded beter plants. What went wrong with that?
Carbon dioxide is a commercial product when it is compressed into dry ice. Several companies provide compressed carbon dioxide in tanks. Have all these commercial uses of CO2 been abandoned? Supposedly methane has a far greater greenhouse efect than CO2 yet I hear absolutely nothing about methane capture or abatement. Why?

arild jensen wrote:
Carbon dioxide is a commercial product when it is compressed into dry ice. Several companies provide compressed carbon dioxide in tanks. Have all these commercial uses of CO2 been abandoned? Supposedly methane has a far greater greenhouse efect than CO2 yet I hear absolutely nothing about methane capture or abatement. Why?

peter dublin wrote:
A guy in Georgia Tech developed in 2008 a CO2 (carbon) collection system for gasolene powered cars
http://www.gatech.edu/newsroom/release.html?nid=71443
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-9984648-48.html
- but he was apparently afterwards refused further research funds, he (or someone representing him) claimed, this was politically motivated,
in the alternative fuel efficiency and electric/hydrogen switching policies sought by federal government
- I can't find my original source for that, but as also seen on online search, nothing seems to have happened afterwards, at least that I could find...

I got in touch with the Georgia Tech research team out of curiosity.
Yes, they were refused further funding on that basis, yet as can be seen by online reports at the time, the original solution seemed viable enough.
I have some doubts about CO2 emission reduction itself in affecting climate change, but of course "ordinary" pollution can also be removed in such processes - and for "green government" it seems odd to exclude such ways, for politically preferred automobile alternatives that keep emitting both CO2 and traditional pollutants:
either emitting them directly via gasolene and equivalents, or indirectly, electric cars powered by fossil fuel electricity or by hydrogen produced from such electricity.

The premise that Light Bulb Bans don't save Coal or CO2 emissions is a dubious assertion at best, though studies are referred to they aren't specifically cited so as to determine what exactly is being said in them or if like with Fox news the context of the statements are being badly skewed. Having switched and followed my energy use it has definately made a difference in my energy bills (and I am a Canadian in NE Ontario looking out my window at 2-3' of snow, ie the cold regions that are supposed to see the most benefit from incandescents) and it is counter to the needed attitude change for large scale CO2 reduction. As for not hearing about methane reduction that is one of the primary reasons for a) reducing consumption of red meat (cow farts/burps) and b) anaerobic manure digestion coupled with electrical generation (methane becomes CO2 which is 20x less effective as a greenhouse gas) both of which have been much reported. You might also want to have a listen to;

http://www.ted.com/talks/james_hansen_why_i_must_speak_out_about_climate_change.html

CO2 bad, methane bad, electric heating bad (and expensive)

Max
being originally from Ontario near lake Simcoe I am quite familiar with the power generation system you live with. Your hydro is not coming mainly from coal fired generators. Much of your power is from hydro-electric dams and the nuclear plants. ( yeah I know, that's another hot button for ecologists but lets save that for another thread) Where I live now our power is 100% hydro-electric so there is zero carbon dioxide release associated with power generation. A tird dam is presently being planned for expansion.

Arild, Ontario has many coal plants and it all feeds into the same grid therefor a portion is indeed coal, that's one of the MANY problems with centralized generation. Heating with lights is NOT cost effective regardless of the energy source.

Max Kennedy wrote:
(edited for below answers)
1. The premise that Light Bulb Bans don't save Coal or CO2 emissions is a dubious assertion at best, though studies are referred to they aren't specifically cited so as to determine what exactly is being said in them or if like with Fox news the context of the statements are being badly skewed.

2. Having switched and followed my energy use it has definately made a difference in my energy bills

3. Electric heating bad (and expensive).... Heating with lights is NOT cost effective regardless of the energy source.

Thanks Max,
though I think you were a bit hasty there...

1. While it is as said a bit of a tongue-in-cheek assertion, it is, in practice, the case.
And not by "Fox News" reference - there are as linked Dept of Energy references, if you care to check before criticising.. http://ceolas.net/#li171x
They are hardly against banning bulbs, and while one can argue with 1, 2, 3 % grid electricity references , it is clearly in that ball park, also from the other institutional references supplied.
Therefore, in that context, when the night working and other coal plant / grid supply factors are considered, it does become "a very small slice of the energy pie" as your Canadian physics professor Peter Blunden puts it.
Also - again , if you look at the comments and references before criticising -
there are several other specific and Canadian institutional links above -which as said also point out the CO2 increase when electricity has low emission origins and the standard heating does not
And your James Hansen reference is more environmental than here relevant electrical engineering references.

2. These "Well my bills are great" type replies,
firstly, are not relevant in what is presumably a society measure to overall save society energy (unless going into people's homes is a priority),
secondly, I would still doubt in overall great energy saving terms (having lived in Scandinavia and also measured own savings)
re less used bulbs in average 30-40 light households, the power factor (not same as power rating) of common CFLs, and other factors as via the above link
thirdly, is a cause for congratulation if you are happy - but does not mean others have to do the same - ie voluntary rather than forced.

3. "Heating with lights is NOT cost effective"
another stock response - but of course noone chooses to heat their room with incandescents
(though see Paul Wheaton's personal space heating experiment elsewhere on this website )
- the point being that the heat is simply a useful extra (http://ceolas.net/#li6x )
and that use with air conditioning is optional and might be preferred anyway for light quality etc reasons


Everyone can agree on that it is good to save energy.
However, as mentioned,
"unnecessarily leaving a light bulb on is a waste of energy, the personal choice of what light bulb to use is not a waste of energy",
given that the future supply (also by environmentally friendly sources) is there as covered previously, and voluntarily paid for by the users.
Particularly with electricity, generation and distribution savings are more relevant,
and if nevertheless targeting the bulbs, market competition and taxation/subsidy policies are in turn more relevant than regulations to save energy, for reasons given.

The ceolis.net article though it refers to authoritative articles often links to references to them by non-authoritative sources not to the article itself. I did read it and looked at many of the links. The actual article links I found all indicated that the benefit was reduced compared to the simplified %reduction in energy use of efficient vs non-efficient lighting. That is reduced not eliminated. In none of those articles was active air circulation, eg a reversed ceiling fan that moves warm air from the ceiling down, compared to passive. Even if the savings are reduced they are savings. Efficient heating still provides equivalent comfort for less overall energy. As for the ban, I have little sympathy for an industry that set artificial bulb life standards to insure planned obsolescence and artificially enlarge the market. As to light quality, that can be readily addressed by purchasing lights with the correct colour temperature, sometimes comes under the idea of grow lights. Thus overall the switch is a net savings of energy which is what the ban was intended for. As for voluntarily vs not, the extreme lack of climate action because of the endless debate is almost certainly relegating us to a world where the tipping point in global climate change will be reached in my lifetime. Though it is only a small positive I applaud and will support the implementation of non-negotiable measures such as this because otherwise nothing will get done.

arild jensen wrote:Max
being originally from Ontario near lake Simcoe I am quite familiar with the power generation system you live with. Your hydro is not coming mainly from coal fired generators. Much of your power is from hydro-electric dams and the nuclear plants. ( yeah I know, that's another hot button for ecologists but lets save that for another thread) Where I live now our power is 100% hydro-electric so there is zero carbon dioxide release associated with power generation. A tird dam is presently being planned for expansion.

Max Kennedy wrote:Arild, Ontario has many coal plants and it all feeds into the same grid therefor a portion is indeed coal, that's one of the MANY problems with centralized generation.

I found out about Ontario for other reasons,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/10/earth-hour-is-it-worth-the-effort/
About the Earth Hour pointlessness in "Switch off lights and save CO2",
including that candles effectively give off similar CO2 amounts
(http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2009/0327/does-lighting-candles-for-earth-hour-defeat-the-purpose)

Ontario = The government's plan to eliminate coal-fired power by the end of 2014
Since 2003, Ontario has shut down 10 of 19 coal units. (ontario.ca/energy)

http://www.energy.gov.on.ca/docs/en/MEI_LTEP_en.pdf#page=4
Coal = estimate 9% of Ontario electricity generation 2010 (12% installed capacity)
Most is Nuclear and Hydro - without the CO2 emissions
And the coal plant issue is of course covered here already...