A response to Lawrence Solomon’s article on carbon capture

Posted on September 1, 2009 by energyprbe

Eric Beynon and Marlo Raynolds

September 1, 2009

Mr. Solomon’s article illustrates a lack of understanding of the potential of carbon capture and storage (CCS) as one of the tools to reduce greenhouse gas emissions globally.

“Anyone serious about dealing with greenhouse gas emissions and has done research and analysis on the solutions, knows we need a complete portfolio of actions including the appropriate and safe application of carbon capture and sequestration,” according to Eric Beynon of the Integrated CO2 Network ICO2N and Marlo Raynolds of the Pembina Institute.

ICO2N has undertaken a significant amount of research on CCS technology, analysis of economic models for development and the best way for establishing an integrated carbon capture and storage network in Canada. This is not unproven technology and a great deal of work is being done to ensure our understanding of this important technology is comprehensive on every front.

The Pembina Institute views CCS as one of a number of technologies that can contribute to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on the scale required to combat dangerous climate change. There is no single solution to addressing climate change and it is incumbent on all of us to ensure accurate information on all the tools available to us.

Here are some key points from ICO2N¹s research to consider in assessing the merits of Mr. Solomon¹s opinion:

  • Throughout recorded history, no earthquake has ever been powerful enough to cause an instantaneous release of oil or gas from a sandstone sediment layer. And since the CO2 would be held in place by the very same impermeable cap rock that has held oil and gas under the earth through millions of years and countless earthquakes, sequestered CO2 would not be in danger of release due to seismic activity.
  • Any system for carbon capture and storage would have stringent guidelines and monitoring systems to ensure the safety of people, integrity of systems and protection of the environment.
  • Underground storage of CCS will be 800 metres to 2 kilometres underground, far below drinking water sources at less than 300 meters underground.
  • Many things can be dangerous, but natural gases are already deep underground and not leaking to the surface now. The 1986 Lake Nyos tragedy was a natural occurrence not dissimilar to mud slides, floods and tsunamis that occur in other parts of the world.
  • CO2 capture and storage is not a new or untested idea. CCS is a technically viable and environmentally safe means of reducing greenhouse gases.  The subsurface is an effective trap for CO2 and other natural gases and large scale trials provide strong evidence that industrial volumes of CO2 can be stored successfully.
  • There are many CCS projects of varying sizes already underway around the world and underground storage of CO2 has been underway for more than a third of a century in the United States. The safety records of existing CCS projects across North America and around the world are exemplary.
  • In Canada, EnCana¹s Weyburn project, which has been monitored by the International Energy Agency, has successfully stored over 13 million tones of CO2 in Southern Saskatchewan over the past nine years.
  • Norwegian energy company, Statoil, an early leader in CCS, has pumped over ten million tonnes of carbon dioxide beneath the bed of the North Sea over the past decade without incident.
  • Suitable sites for CO2 storage are chosen after rigorous analysis of their quality and capacity and are typically either depleted oil or gas reservoirs or deep saline formations.
  • Niels Peter Christensen, chief geologist at Swedish energy company Vattenfall, says he understands the public¹s concern about unfamiliar technologies, but believes it is misplaced when it comes to CCS.
  • We suspect that any CCS project that is currently dispersing CO2 into the atmosphere is not doing so as part of a long term strategy, but rather an interim method while public understanding and education on CCS storage is undertaken.

Media, scientists, environmental groups and industry have an important role to play in ensuring accurate information is provided on the various new technologies to address CO2 emissions.  A suite of technologies will be needed to address climate change and although CCS is not without its challenges, industry is working with science and technology experts to make it a viable solution for Canada.  An informed public will assist with forming policy and providing objective input on projects or programs.

Eric Beynon
Director, Strategy & Policy
Integrated CO2 Network – ICO2N
http://www.ico2n.com <file://localhost/C/temp0/www.ico2n.com>
Phone 403.269.6285
Cell: 416.995.5843

Marlo Raynolds
Executive Director,
Pembina Institute
http://www.pembina.org <http://www.pembina.org/&gt;
Phone: 403-269-3344 ext. 113
Cell: 403-607-9427

Read Lawrence Solomon’s original article.

Posted in Climate Change, Costs, Benefits and Risks, Energy Probe News | Leave a comment

Aldyen Donnelly: What the Waman-Markey Bill means to Canada

Posted on September 1, 2009 by energyprbe

On the Status of Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiatives and the Western Climate Initiative

The Waxman-Markey (W-M) Bill proposes to exchange Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) allowances for US federal Greenhouse Gas (GHG) allowances at a large RGGI allowance discount. The result of the W-M bill is that RGGI allowance market prices have fallen to US$2.50 to $2.90/TCO2e.  Note that CCX carbon financial instruments are trading at US$0.30 to $).40/TCO2e—well below last year’s peak of US$7.50.
 
It should be noted that recent legislative activity in the states of Washington and Oregon suggest that legislators in those states have already rejected the Western Climate Initiative (WCI) partnership.  So WCI has a questionable future even if no final US climate change bill emerges in the near term.
 
On “…Adoption of a renewable electricity standard could open up new export opportunities for Canadian suppliers of ‘green’ energy.”

I disagree with this assessment.  Under the proposed US federal Renewable Electricity and Efficiency Standard (“REES”)—I believe the final US law will be very similar to the W-M proposal—the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will certify qualified US renewable energy projects and issue US Renewable Energy Certificates (REC) to those projects.  There is no provision to issue RECs to non-US renewable energy projects in the current bill.  The federal REES will not supercede existing state Renewable Energy Standards (RES)—there are 31— as long as the state RESs are at least as stringent as the federal target.  27 of the existing 31 state RESs do not accept RECs from out-of-state, let along out-of-country.  There is no federal proposal to compel states to allow for inter-state or international trading in RECs.
 
Having said this, I believe that it will be much, much easier for the government of Canada to negotiate a common NAFTA market for RECs than it will be to negotiate fair and free trade in GHG allowances and offsets.  (Among other things, the WTO rule basis for free trade in RECs is much stronger than the legal basis for free trade in allowances if/once we agree to trade GHG allowances with the US.)  So I feel that Canada’s top priority should be to: (1) implement a Canadian federal RES and (2) demand that the US treat Canadian RECs as if they originate in the US under WTO and NAFTA (Part 9) rules.
 
Note that under the W-M proposal (I believe this provision will go final) in the absence of contract language that says otherwise, the GHG liabilities arising from power generation are assigned to the Load-Serving Entity (“LSE”) and all US GHGs associated with exported products and services are exempt from the US GHG cap.  This means that under US federal (and existing legislated California and Washington state) GHG accounting procedures, BC is liable for 100% of the GHGs associated with our US power imports.  Based on actual 2002 through 2008 trade, this adds 6 to 12 MTCO2e to BC’s GHG inventory.  Unless Powerex’s contracts with US customers expressly stipulate that BC has retained the environmental attributes associated with our clean energy production, the US procedure stipulates that title to the zero-emission attributes associated with our exports belongs to the US importer.  Also, the US regulators initially propose to assign 1 standard GHG charge to all electricity imports from Canada. 
 
What does this mean?

For purposes of determining what the transborder on every Canadian MWh of exported power, the US will add Canadian power sector GHGs to the GHGs associated with our imports from the US.  They subtract the net GHGs associated with our exports to the US (a very small number relative to the GHGs associated with our imports, because most of our exports are from zero-emission sources).  They divide this GHG emission total by total Canadian power sales (domestic and export) to create a single GHG/MWh factor.  Every US importer of electricity from Canada is obliged to surrender US GHG allowances covering this factor multiplied by their imports.  Please note that there is no free US GHG allowance allocation to “importers” and W-M stipulates that LSEs are obliged to use their free GHG allowance allocations for the benefit of US rate-payers and the US economy.  In other words, the W-M bill combines to hit all Canadian clean power exports with an indirect GHG tariff (the burden on the importer to buy US GHG allowances).
 
The position of US regulators is that it is up to Canada and the provinces to address any regional inequities the US setting of a single nation-wide GHG/MWh factor might create.  This US procedure eliminates any opportunity for hydro-rich Canadian provinces to game the US regulatory regime.  Of course, this US procedure will lead to substantial new conflicts between Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Nova, Scotia, New Brunswick and the hydro provinces unless our federal regulators anticipate this and implement a highly strategic negotiation with the US.
 
On the US Target and GHG Allowance Supply

It should be noted that the US 2020 and 2030 targets are in hand on a Business as Usual (“BaU”) basis, as long as US industry complies with the REES and Renewable Fuel Standard (“RFS”) that are embedded in Title 1 of the W-M bill.  There is no incremental GHG reduction associated with the proposed US GHG allowance supply.  The distribution of US GHG allowances is a mechanism through which Congress will intervene in the market to shift the economic impacts of the BaU + REES + RFS forecast.
 
This reality derives largely from the following considerations:

  • Over 55% of US 2020 BaU GHG emissions originate in the US power sector.  Over 25% of existing US power supply originates at generation units that are over 50 years old and scheduled for replacement before 2017 on a normal business basis.  These older coal-fired generation plants discharge, on average, 1.35 TCO2e/MWh.  If they were to be replaced with 20 year-old pulverized coal plants, their GHGs would fall to about 0.95 TCO2e/MWh.  So there is a minimum 4% reduction in the US national GHG inventory embedded in the normal US power generation stock turnover rate.  If the aged capacity is replaced with state-of-the art CCGT (natural gas-fired) technology, all other things being equal, an absolute 16% reduction in US national GHGs is in hand.  By comparison, only three coal-fired power generation units in Canada are over 40 years old today, and the average age of Canadian coal-fired power plants is under 20 years.  If Canadians were to eliminate 100% of coal-fired generation in Canada and replace it with state-of-the-art CCGT supply, all other things being equal, Canada’s national GHG emissions would decline about 6%.

 

  • Similar large US stock replacement schedules are in the BaU forecast between 2010 and 2020 in the iron and steel, aluminum and petroleum refining sectors, due to the high average aged of US plant.  As in the power sector, Canada’s younger and more efficient capital stock is at a disadvantage in a North American carbon market designed along the lines of the W-M proposal.

 
Under the US carbon market proposal, a US aluminum plant that cuts supply chain and production GHGs from 12 T per tonne of aluminum (“Al”) produced is treated as the equivalent to a Canadian power plant that cuts GHGs from 6 T/TAl.  The US-dictated standard will oblige US aluminum smelters to cut GHGs to 10T/TAl by 2020 and Canadian smelters to cut, on average from 6T/TAl to 5TCO2e/TAl.  It costs, roughly, 1/3 as much to cut US smelter GHGs from 12 to 6TCO2e/TAl as it cost to cut Canadian smelter GHGs from 6 to 5 TCO2e/TAl.  Under the proposed US cap and trade rules, US smelters will receive 4 surplus allowances and offset credits when they get their GHG rate down to 6TCO2e/TAl, while Canadian aluminum exports will be assigned a 1TCO2e/TAl transborder charge if they fail to cut GHGs to 5TCO22/TAl.
 
Please also note that critical impact on the balance of trade associated with the US legislators’ agreement that US GHGs associated with US exports are exempt from the US GHG cap.  Congress recognizes Canada’s right to assign GHG-related import charges to US exports that are exempt from US GHG limits.  However, this procedure, by definition, puts any energy, food and building product exporting nation at a competitive disadvantage relative to a net importer.  This is, of course, why US legislators support the procedure.  This procedure is not only unfair, but threatens Canadian unity.  Canadian import tariffs will have a much more inflationary impact in Ontario and Quebec than in, say, BC, Alberta or Saskatchewan.  The government of Canada cannot afford to take our nation down this path.
 
Clearly, Canadian negotiators have to oppose the US-proposed carbon market proposal and present an alternative.  The appropriate Canadian strategy is to formally propose a set of North American GHG product standards for the eight critical carbon-based products.  Should any entity that distributes aluminum in North American demonstrate that their sales portfolio average supply chain GHGs are, say, 10TCO2e/TAl in 2015, or less?  The only way to develop a fair and free North American carbon market is to establish product standards (where distributors are obligated parties and the standard applies to all sales, regardless of country of origin).  Any distributor that beats the regulated product standard can earn bankable, tradable GHG allowances equal to the difference between their sales multiplied by their actual portfolio average GHG/unit of product sold rate and the regulated product standard.
 
Canada’s GHG regulations must establish this product standard approach, whether or not the US agrees to this procedure in pre-Copenhagen negotiations.  The government of Canada must not allocate or distribute Canadian GHG allowances ex-ante and allowances should be issued only to distributors who beat the regulated product standards.  This regulatory strategy has great environmental integrity.  With this kind of regulation in place (along with an REES that is superior to the W-M proposal), Canada can efficiently provoke industry to reduce emissions at the same time our federal government can launch a successful challenge to the US cap and trade and GHG allowance allocation in WTO, NAFTA and (most importantly) US courts.
 
On “comparable” and “similar” climate change programs…

Note that the US proposes to hit Canadian exports with transborder adjustments if we fail to meet any one of the following “comparability” tests:

Are Canadian facility-level air pollution and GHG reporting standard comparable to the US reporting rules? 

The answer is: absolutely not, a complaint the US EPA has repeatedly registered under the Canada-US Air Quality Agreement since 1991.  W-M stipulates that Canada’s mandates will not be deemed “comparable” until we promulgate facility-level reporting rules similar to the US’s and share the raw data that Environment Canada collects from Canadian facilities directly with the US EPA.  Environment Canada’s other top priority has to be to promulgate Canadian facility-level emission reporting mandates that are “comparable” (but not identical) to the US reporting standards
 
Is Canada’s GHG Offset System comparable in scope and stringency to the US system? 

If Environment Canada implements the Offset System as it is currently proposed, the answer is: absolutely not (see below).  W-M does not allow US regulated entities to import Offset Credits from developed nations (i.e. Canada).  But W-M does say that the US has to determine that a developed nation’s Offset System is “comparable” to the US system as a pre-requisite to US approval of transborder trade in Canadian GHG allowances.  I do believe that our negotiators will succeed in getting the US agree to trade in Canadian offset credits, but only if Canada’s offset system exactly parallels the US system.
 
The US will not allow cross border trade in either Canadian allowances or offset credits if Environment Canada implements the offset system that is currently proposed.  The key issue is that Environment Canada proposes to issue offset credits to renewable power, CCS and biofuel projects, all of which are under the regulation under the US system and not qualified to earn GHG offset credits.  There are a range of other projects that Environment Canada proposes to award offset credits that are also not acceptable to the US EPA, but these are the most critical (more below on this matter).
 
Is Canada’s 2020 target “comparable” to the US target? 

This is a very important and potentially difficult part of the Canada/US negotiation.  The US will define “comparable” as 17% below actual 2005 GHG levels, NOT 620 MTCO2e.  I know…620 MTCO2e equals 17% below Canada’s 2005 GHG levels.  But there is substantial legal difference between an agreement that commits Canada to a % reduction from a 2005 baseline and one that commits Canada to a 620 MTCO2e cap in 2020.  Which term we agree to will significantly impact our ability to defend against protectionist US carbon market measures.  Our negotiators must be very, very clear that we are not agreeing to any % reduction from a base year.  If we are willing to agree to an absolute 620 MTCO2e cap for 2020 the US negotiators might be willing to accept it because it happens to equate to 2005 levels minus 17%.  But we must not formally agree to the base year or percent reduction target.
 
On the US-proposed “very permissive offset regime”

I disagree that the US-proposed offset system is very permissive.  Environment Canada’s currently proposed offset system is more permissive (but likely to prove administratively more costly).  This is a significant liability for Canadian exporters.
 
Please note that under the “cap and trade” provisions of W-M, US producers and importers of electricity, natural gas, fossil-based and biofuels and refrigeration chemicals must account for some supply chain, all production and US consumer end-use GHGs.  In other words, the cap and trade regulations cover roughly 85% of US GHG emissions.  US legislators have made it clear that they will not accept a combination of Canadian cap and trade and offset rules that cover only 31% of the Canadian GHG emissions with regulation and 70% of the inventory with an offset system.
 
W-M proposes to impose transborder adjustments on exports from developed nations that issue offset credits to activities/sectors that are included in the first table below.  In other words, the Offset System currently proposed by Environment Canada exposes Canadian energy, food and building product exporters to significant potential tariff liabilities.
 
US Offset Credit Generation: Only 1 billion US offset credits allowed 15% of US GHGs.  W-M also allows for up to 1 billion offset credits originating in developing nations only.  For Canada’s Offset System to be comparable, we must theoretically limit Canadian Offset Credit supply to 112 MTCO2e/year.  Environment Canada proposes no limit.
 
Activities Qualified for US Offset Credits: But only unregulated sources/activities can earn GHG Offset Credits under the US offset system.  These sources/activities are limited to:

Activites/Sectors that Can Receive          Canadian GHGs in 2007
Offset Credits Under W-M-comparable
GHG Regulation    
 
                                                                  ktCO2e
ag, direct soils                                              14,684
ag, enteric fermentation                                22,637
ag, indirect soils (fertilizer use)                      10,633
ag, manure management                              4,791
industrial process aluminum production            5,097
industrial process, ammonia production           6,240
industrial processes, adipica acid production     1,491
industrial processes, cement production           7,253
industrial processes, iron & steel                     6,033
industrial processes, magnesium production    325
industrial processes, other                             13,096
LULUCF, converted to wetlands                       766
LULUCF, forest land remaining forest              5,936
LULUCF, forest loss                                      29,688
LULUCF, land converted to cropland                7,283
LULUCF, land converted to settlements           7,849
waste disposal on land                                  20,200
total unregulated GHGs                                 164,002
regulated GHGs as % of total Cdn GHG inventory    22%
 
The offset system candidate sources/activities discharged only 164 MTCO2e in 2007.  If we could imagine voluntarily cutting emissions in these sectors, absolutely, by 33%, that means the effective limit on Canada’s offset credit supply is 54 MTCO2e/year or less.
 
W-M stipulates that imports from Canada that originate in a sector or relies on activities that are regulated under the US scheme but receive offset credits under the Canadian scheme will be assigned transborder charges.  The activities that are regulated and cannot earn offset credits under the US rules include but are not restricted to: renewable power projects (wind, solar, PV, etc.); CCS projects, biofuels.
 
On Offset Credit Imports from Developing Nations:

The Obama administration intends to use this provision in the future to indirectly partially meet its new international aid commitments.  The value of US regulated entity purchases of developing nation offsets will be included in the US accounting for its international aid spending.  Canadian negotiators should consider the implications of this.
 
Offset Credit Use:

Regulated entities’ rights to use offset credits to comply with their regulated GHG caps are limited. “The ability to demonstrate compliance with offset credits shall be divided pro rata among covered entities by allowing each covered entity to satisfy a percentage of the number of allowances required to be held under subsection (b) to demonstrate compliance by holding 1 domestic offset credit or 1.25 international offset credits in lieu of an emission allowance, except as provided in subparagraph (D)… The percentage referred to in subparagraph (A) for a given calendar year shall be determined by dividing 2 billion by the sum of 2 billion plus the number of emission allowances established under section 721(a) for the previous year, and multiplying that number by 100.” 

So, in 2012, for example, US regulated entities can use offset credits to cover 30% of their reported GHG emissions and must use US GHG allowances to cover the remaining 70%.  In 2017, the limit on offset use is 27% of total reported emissions.

Posted in Aldyen Donnelly | Leave a comment

Ban the bulb? What kind of bright idea is that?

Posted on September 1, 2009 by energyprbe

Robert Sheppard
CBC
September 1, 2009

Thomas Edison’s invention of the light bulb a century or so ago — with the help of a couple of Canadian patent holders — was not just a bright idea. It was the quintessential bright idea, the very symbol of eureka!

Even such a dimwit as Donald Duck was known to have had a light bulb go on over his head on occasion.

And while the slow-lighting curlicue of a compact fluorescent does not carry nearly the same visual kaboom, it is such an energy-efficient device that even such Kyoto skeptics as the federal Conservatives are turned on by it.

A case in point: in April 2007, former Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn announced that Ottawa will phase out the sale of inefficient incandescent bulbs by 2012. The ban is expected to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than six million tonnes a year and save homeowners about $60 annually in electricity costs.

Bulbs by household

The federal government’s move followed a similar ban by Ontario announced earlier that month. The province said that replacing all the roughly 87 million incandescent bulbs in Ontario homes with compact fluorescents or other efficient lighting by 2012 could cut electricity demand by six million megawatt hours over the course of a year, enough to power 600,000 households.

Both jurisdictions are following the lead of Australia, which earlier in 2007 became the first country to ban the venerable incandescent bulb. It remains on track to phase them out by 2010. The European Union also jumped on the “ban-the-bulb” bandwagon in 2007. As of Sept. 1, 2009, the EU has ended the manufacture and import of 100-watt and frosted incandescent light bulbs. Clear bulbs will be banned progressively, until all traditional bulbs disappear from stores across Europe in 2012.

From the brightest bulb in the box to environmental dodo in just over a century — that’s what happens when the climate warms and the heat increases under the feet of politicians.

Another beer fridge?

No one doubts that compact fluorescent bulbs are much more energy efficient than the traditional bulbs that Edison invented. The equivalent compact fluorescent bulb consumes up to 75 per cent less energy than an incandescent one and also lasts up to 10 times longer.

That’s because CFs use only a small amount of electricity to excite the gas in the tube. That produces an invisible ultraviolet light, which is less than the UV in ordinary daylight and which bounces off the white coating inside the bulb to produce a light you can see.

Incandescents, on the other hand, heat a filament inside a tube until it is white hot and produces light. But in the process, over 90 per cent of the energy used is dissipated in heat, usually without any real purpose.

Natural Resources Canada has estimated that if every one of the country’s 12 million households changed just one incandescent bulb for a compact fluorescent, that would result in a $73 million savings on our collective electricity bills as well as a corresponding 397,000 tonne reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, the equivalent of taking 66,000 cars off the road.

If we followed the Aussies and went to an outright ban that could result in a whopping eight million tonne drop in greenhouse gas emissions (see the math below). But some of these gains are probably illusory.

As Tom Adams of Toronto-based Energy Probe points out, incandescent lighting — because of all the heat it gives off — probably contributes to home comfort levels in many parts of the country, particularly in winter. Take that away and you might have to crank your thermostat up another notch.

(Of course, if you keep the hotter incandescents going in the summer, you might have to increase your air conditioning, as well.)

There is also what you might call the beer-fridge problem. Years ago, Ontario Hydro offered huge rebates if its customers would switch to the latest energy-efficient fridges (and other appliances). Many people took them up on the offer, then just put the old fridge down in the basement and used it as a second appliance, a beer fridge, in the process adding to energy demand.

The same phenomenon goes on almost every time, Adams says; as efficiencies improve, utilization goes up.

Slow adopters

Still, most environmentalists argue that Canada could take a huge bite out of its energy emissions if only we would enforce the highest efficiency standards for small appliances, electrical motors, home insulation and, yes, lighting.

Compact fluorescents have come down considerably in price in recent years and, because of their long life, are probably the better bargain.

But we Canadians are slow to change our immediate penny-conscious ways and may need a government push if we are going to move with the tide.

In a 2003 survey, Natural Resources found that the average Canadian household used 26.4 light bulbs and that 77 per cent of these — no less than 243 million — were the old incandescent variety.

What that means is that if we had an Aussie-style ban on incandescents, we could, at least theoretically, eliminate something in the order of eight million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions. (That’s: 243,000,000 bulbs divided by 12,000,000 households times 397,000 tonnes.)

There are some problems with compact fluorescent lights, of course. Only certain, more expensive ones can work on dimmers; some people say they don’t work well in the cold; and they contain minute amounts of mercury (less than you would find in a watch battery, according to Natural Resources Canada), so they shouldn’t just be thrown out with the garbage.

Proponents say the minute mercury in bulbs is much less than the amounts that would have been released into the atmosphere by coal-fired generating plants. But if there is a mass conversion, this could present some disposal problems.

Still, in the battle for a greener future, and a cheaper electric bill, they might just be a bright idea whose time has come. Sorry cartoonists.

Penetration Rate of CFLs

Posted in Benefits, Conservation, Electricity, Energy Probe News | Leave a comment

Coal is still king: Sources

Posted on August 29, 2009 by energyprbe

August 29, 2009

World Coal Demand and Supply Prospects

Canada’s Energy Outlook 1996-2020–Chapter 4

Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide

IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage

IPCC Special Report–Carbon Dioxide and Storage draft summary for policymakers

Honourable Gordon Hogg Minister of State for Mining, Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

Annual Energy Outlook 2009 with Projections to 2030

Capacity to store CCS under the Scottish North Sea area greater than the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany combined

Posted in Coal, Fossil Fuels | Leave a comment

Coal is still king

Posted on August 29, 2009 by energyprbe

Lawrence Solomon
Financial Post
August 29, 2009

Governments are enthusiastically pushing coal on the assumption that carbon capture and storage technologies will work.

We can’t continue to use the atmosphere as a dump for carbon dioxide emissions, say governments concerned about global warming. Rather than storing this colourless, odourless, tasteless gas way up there, they reason, let’s store the carbon dioxide way down here, buried under ground or in the oceans.

And since burial solves the carbon dioxide problem, they then conclude, we can with a clear conscience crank up our use of coal.

This is the case in Canada, where the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy proposes a continuation of the boom that we’ve seen in coal mining this decade. This is the case in the U.S., where coal production has been steadily growing and where President Barack Obama touts coal above other energy options. And this is especially the case in the United Kingdom, perhaps the world’s most earnest warner of global warming catastrophe. The U.K. is today so bullish on burial that it has resuscitated the coal mining industry that Maggie Thatcher tried to kill off in the 1980s.

In the last four years, the U.K. has approved 54 coal mines, most of them open-pit, while simultaneously pointing to the aggressive reductions in CO2 emissions to which it’s committed — 34% by 2020. Scotland, which boasts the world’s very toughest CO2 reduction targets (42% by 2020), has approved 25 new open-pit mines, helping them along by relaxing planning regulations that apply to open-pit mines. Because all this isn’t enough, the U.K. is considering the approval of another 19 open-pit mines as well as upping its coal imports too.

“We don’t see this as counter to our climate change message,” cheerily states the government’s Department for Energy and Climate Change. “The U.K. is at the forefront of global efforts to decarbonise fossil fuels.”

The decarbonisation that the U.K. government refers to involves burial on land and — especially attractive for an island nation — at sea. A recently released Scottish government report determined that the Scottish area of the North Sea alone could store all the carbon dioxide that all the coal-fired plants in the U.K. would produce over the next two centuries, leading the Scottish First Minister to speculate that a high-tech carbon capture and storage industry could create 10,000 Scottish jobs.

But ocean storage raises a tide of objections from environmentalists, Greenpeace among them. Carbon dioxide in water could seriously acidify the oceans — already a concern — removing nutrients for plankton in areas like the U.K.’s North Sea as well as in shallow ocean waters, and affecting the food source for marine life. Some ocean storage technologies kill marine life directly. Plus, many scientists believe the oceans will fail to effectively contain carbon dioxide, which will be pumped into waters in either liquid or gaseous form. No one, not even the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, considers ocean storage to be much more than a concept, let alone a proven technology.

The potential for havoc to humans is much greater with carbon storage facilities under land. Carbon dioxide could adversely acidify groundwater, leading to leaching of contaminants into the water supply and rendering aquifers unusable.  For this reason and others — an unplanned release of the gas could suffocate humans or animals, and carbon storage can induce earthquakes — governments on both sides of the Atlantic have proposed carbon storage facilities and communities have opposed them.

How will this all end? We can be confident that coal use will keep on growing for decades to come, in line with official projections that show worldwide demand soon doubling —without coal for electricity production, most jurisdictions will be unable to keep the lights on. We can also be confident that communities will successfully fend off many if not most of the carbon storage schemes that threaten them and their environments. Finally, we can be confident that governments, after spending tens of billions on carbon storage schemes of dubious benefit, will conclude that the safest place to store today’s relatively high levels of carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere, where it now resides.

Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and Urban Renaissance Institute and author of The Deniers: The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud.

lawrencesolomon@nextcity.com

Click here to read the Sources used in this column.

Posted in Coal, Energy Probe News, Fossil Fuels | Leave a comment

Carbon Baron Gore: Sources

Posted on August 25, 2009 by energyprbe

August 25, 2009

Generation announces plans for new investment management firm

Generation Investment Management and Kleiner Perkins Caufield and Byers Create International Alliance to Accelerate Global Climate Solutions

CALSTRS Independent Auditor’s Report

Mistra awards mandate to Generation Investment Management

Global investors add to the voice from the corporate community in calling for early action on climate change

Al Gore’s next act: Planet-saving VC

Foundations Urged to Consider Environmental Issues in Investing Decisions

THE 2000 CAMPAIGN: THE PERSONAL FINANCES; Gore Has Not Bought Stocks for Decades

Posted in The Deniers | Leave a comment

Carbon Baron Gore

Posted on August 25, 2009 by energyprbe

Lawrence Solomon
National Post
August 25, 2009
Who will be the Robber Barons of the 21st century? Al Gore is poised to become the first climate billionaire.

At the turn of the 20th century, a period famous for its Robber Barons, John D. Rockefeller was making his fortune in oil, Andrew Carnegie in steel, Cornelius Vanderbilt in railroads and J.P Morgan in finance. Many predict that the history books of the future, when listing the legendary fortunes made at the turn of the 21st century, will place Al Gore at the top of the list, as the first great Carbon Baron.

In 2000, when Al Gore lost his bid to become president of the United States, he had less than US$2-million in assets. Neither was Gore known for his financial acumen — annual White House disclosures of his and Tipper Gore’s joint tax filings showed little income beyond the $175,000 he earned as vice-president.

To the contrary, Gore was a laughing stock in investment circles for his lack of financial sophistication, which, the press said, explained why Gore’s net worth had been declining during the booming 1990s. Gore had failed to understand the significance of the new Internet economy that had so transformed the world. Instead “most of his money was in checking and passbook accounts or tied up in property,” The New York Times reported, in an article entitled “Gore Has Not Bought Stocks for Decades.” In an article entitled “Gore flunks investor test,” Dow Jones’ SmartMoney.Com mocked Gore for being irrationally risk averse, saying, “Al Gore’s assets look more like 1899 than 1999. As things stand, the vice-president is without anything with a P/E, let alone an IPO: no stocks, no funds, not even a bond. What does he have? Land — as far as the eye can see. Oh, and a zinc mine he’s leasing out to an Australian mining company.” Fortune magazine went so far as to headline a 1998 story, “The Vice President’s Financial Acumen ‘Ain’t Worth a Bucket of Warm Spit'” Its verdict: “This is a family in dire need of a money manager.”

Nobody doubts Gore’s financial acumen now. Within eight years of leaving politics, Gore had reportedly become worth well in excess of US$100-million. Many expect him to become a billionaire through his stakes in a global warming hedge fund, a carbon-offset business, a renewable energy investment business and other global warming related ventures. He is now money manager to institutional investors and the super rich through Generation Investment Management, a firm that he co-founded in 2004.

Neither does anyone anywhere any longer regard Gore as a timid investor, bereft of ambition. His goal for Generation Investment Management, as he described in 2008 to Fortune magazine, is to help drive a societal transformation that will be “bigger than the Industrial Revolution and significantly faster.”

The Fortune interview explained his firm’s intention to help orchestrate “a makeover of the US$6-trillion global energy business,” from coal plants and the internal-combustion engine to petrochemicals and even bottled water. “What we are going to have to put in place is a combination of the Manhattan Project, the Apollo project and the Marshall Plan, and scale it globally,” Gore continued. “It’d be promising too much to say we can do it on our own, but we intend to do our part.”

Gore’s societal plan and his investment plan are indistinguishable and straightforward: He wants to make fossil fuels uncompetitive and renewable energy competitive by convincing governments to punishingly tax fossil-fuel technologies through mechanisms such as cap and trade. In the process, Gore intends to make money at every stage of this transformation — through his stake in the carbon trading markets being created, through his portfolio of renewable energy and other so-called clean-tech investments and by acting as a broker.

In amassing his fortune, Gore has not been operating in an unfamiliar business environment, as the early detractors of his investment acumen might imagine. Rather, he has been operating entirely in his element. He has always been a lobbyist for climate change legislation, whether as a senator or as vice-president, and he remains so in his new capacities. And in his capacity as a politician, he always needed to raise funds. This is the essential skill he brings to Generation Investment Management, where he today approaches old political allies for support: Gore asks well-heeled charitable foundations, endowments, corporations and pension funds to place their assets under the management of his firm. To do their bit for the environment, and for him, they oblige.

To date, Gore has done well for himself. As for the others, they know not to expect quick profits: Gore is clear in explaining that his focus is on long-term sustainable investments.

And as for Gore’s prospects of becoming a billionaire, they rest entirely on one big bet: That government legislation will create the mandates that his businesses need to boom. Without those mandates, his businesses — few of which are viable in a traditional free market economy — will go bust. As will the funds entrusted to him by the charities, endowments and pension funds seeking sustainable investments.

There is nothing unusual in furthering business interests through government mandates: Many of the Robber Barons of a century ago also relied on their ability to lobby for favourable government legislation. Where Gore departs from the Robber Barons of yesteryear is in the nature of the product being produced. Whatever else might be said of the Robber Barons, there was no disputing the value of the railroads, steel, oil and other commodities that they were producing. In the case of carbon dioxide, the basis of Gore’s economy, rather than there being no dispute, there is no consensus that he isn’t selling vapourware.

Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and Urban Renaissance Institute and author of The Deniers: The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud.

Click here for the Sources used in this column.

Read next or previous article in the Climate Profiteers series.

Other Climate Profiteers articles:

Enron’s other secret

Climate insurance

Hot climate premiums

DuPont’s new game

Fill up with subsidies

Profitin’ in the wind

The free luncher: Exelon

Posted in Energy Probe News, The Deniers | 3 Comments

New Ice Age could be coming

Posted on August 24, 2009 by energyprbe

Financial Post
Earth could soon be entering a new Ice Age, according to scientists at Oregon State University and other institutions, in a study to be released this week by Science magazine.

"Sometime around now, scientists say, the Earth should be changing from a long interglacial period that has lasted the past 10,000 years and shifting back towards conditions that will ultimately lead to another ice age – unless some other forces stop or slow it," states a release from Oregon State University.

The Science study refutes claims by some scientists that carbon dioxide was an important factor in ending the last ice Age. It concludes that wobbles in Earth’s rotation first led global ice levels "to reach their peak about 26,000 years ago, stabilize for 7,000 years and then begin melting 19,000 years ago, eventually bringing to an end the last ice age.

"The melting was first caused by more solar radiation, not changes in carbon dioxide levels or ocean temperatures, as some scientists have suggested in recent years."

————
The full announcement from Oregon State University appears below:

Long debate ended over cause, demise of ice ages — may also help predict future
August 6th, 2009 in Space & Earth / Earth Sciences

Researchers have largely put to rest a long debate on the underlying mechanism that has caused periodic ice ages on Earth for the past 2.5 million years – they are ultimately linked to slight shifts in solar radiation caused by predictable changes in Earth’s rotation and axis.

In a publication to be released Friday in the journal Science, researchers from Oregon State University and other institutions conclude that the known wobbles in Earth’s rotation caused global ice levels to reach their peak about 26,000 years ago, stabilize for 7,000 years and then begin melting 19,000 years ago, eventually bringing to an end the last ice age.

The melting was first caused by more solar radiation, not changes in carbon dioxide levels or ocean temperatures, as some scientists have suggested in recent years.

"Solar radiation was the trigger that started the ice melting, that’s now pretty certain," said Peter Clark, a professor of geosciences at OSU. "There were also changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and ocean circulation, but those happened later and amplified a process that had already begun."

The findings are important, the scientists said, because they will give researchers a more precise understanding of how ice sheets melt in response to radiative forcing mechanisms. And even though the changes that occurred 19,000 years ago were due to increased solar radiation, that amount of heating can be translated into what is expected from current increases in greenhouse gas levels, and help scientists more accurately project how Earth’s existing ice sheets will react in the future.

"We now know with much more certainty how ancient ice sheets responded to solar radiation, and that will be very useful in better understanding what the future holds," Clark said. "It’s good to get this pinned down."

To make their analysis, the researchers used an analysis of 6,000 dates and locations of ice sheets to define, with a high level of accuracy, when they started to melt. In doing this, they confirmed a theory that was first developed more than 50 years ago that pointed to small but definable changes in Earth’s rotation as the trigger for ice ages.

"We can calculate changes in the Earth’s axis and rotation that go back 50 million years," Clark said. "These are caused primarily by the gravitational influences of the larger planets, such as Jupiter and Saturn, which pull and tug on the Earth in slightly different ways over periods of thousands of years."

That, in turn, can change the Earth’s axis – the way it tilts towards the sun – about two degrees over long periods of time, which changes the way sunlight strikes the planet. And those small shifts in solar radiation were all it took to cause multiple ice ages during about the past 2.5 million years on Earth, which reach their extremes every 100,000 years or so.

Sometime around now, scientists say, the Earth should be changing from a long interglacial period that has lasted the past 10,000 years and shifting back towards conditions that will ultimately lead to another ice age – unless some other forces stop or slow it. But these are processes that literally move with glacial slowness, and due to greenhouse gas emissions the Earth has already warmed as much in about the past 200 years as it ordinarily might in several thousand years, Clark said.

"One of the biggest concerns right now is how the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets will respond to global warming and contribute to sea level rise," Clark said. "This study will help us better understand that process, and improve the validity of our models."

Source: Oregon State University http://www.physorg.com/print168791411.html

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Junk science?

Posted on August 21, 2009 by energyprbe

When Lawrence Solomon invited me to join his blogging I thought it might be amusing and interesting. However, the appearance of Ian Plimer’s book “Heaven and Earth” opens a really useful subject of discussion.

In the cacophony of assertions and accusations about climate warming…who is guilty of junk science and who is not? One should look for decisive simplifications of complex issues, and fig.11 on page 89 of his book provides one such. It shows that the “temperature variation” of the climate of Europe from 1280 to 1340 was about 9.9 C, from 1660 to 1690 was about 8.7 C, and in 2000 is about 9.4 C. If this is right, it shows that temperatures well above what the world is now concerned about were only aberrations, and, in particular, that there was no positive feedback causing a “runaway”.

Unfortunately, and it seems to be a mental disease associated with climate change issue, Plimer, in 504 pages, gives as the source of this crucial presentation as “derived from hundreds of studies.”

Does Lawrence Solomon have enough clout with Plimer to get him to quote the actual refences in the usual scientific manner? I wish he would try – I doubt if Plimer would even answer my query.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Press Release: Energy Probe hails McGuinty's Toronto taxi reform, urges full speed ahead outside Toronto, too

Posted on August 18, 2009 by energyprbe

Energy Probe

August 18, 2009

The Toronto-based Energy Probe Research Foundation is applauding the provincial government for its recent decision to amend the City of Toronto Act and allow airport-licensed taxis and limousines to pick up fares in the city. The group believes the province’s decision will lower costs for consumers while improving air quality and reducing congestion.

While Energy Probe’s Executive Director Lawrence Solomon supports the decision by Queen’s Park, he believes there’s more work to be done.

“This is certainly a step in the right direction for the province,” says Solomon. “But the province should abolish all municipal licensing of taxis and allow taxis to operate across municipal lines.”

Solomon believes the McGuinty decision is a good one for environmental reasons, as it creates a more efficient taxi service in the city and surrounding areas. Allowing airport taxis and limousines to pick up fares in the neighboring community promotes energy efficiency and helps ease road congestion, as the taxis won’t be making empty runs.

“Forcing taxi drivers to leave the city without picking up fares was a waste of energy and an additional drain on our infrastructure,” he says.

But the decision by Queen’s Park will also benefit consumers in the city and surrounding areas, says Solomon. The increased number of taxis able to pick up fares in the city will decrease wait times for potential costumers. This, he believes, will encourage more people to use taxes as the level of service will be more predictable and, ultimately, cheaper.

Solomon thinks that taxicab deregulation will create a larger market share for taxis services. A more dependable, efficient and cheaper service would encourage residents to rely on taxis rather than on private vehicles.

Contact:

Lawrence Solomon, Executive Director, Energy Probe, 416-964-9223 ext 241 or lawrencesolomon@nextcity.com. 

Posted in Conservation, Energy Probe News | 1 Comment