It’s had the feel of a strange year. A good point was at the C40 meeting in Mexico City, where four major world cities affirmed that they would ban diesel engines in their boundaries. A low point was in Canada where we have experienced one of the warmest summers in history. And satellite photography reaffirms that the polar ice is melting at a much faster rate than expected.
In the face of that kind of evidence, our Provincial approach to climate change and to adapting to 21st century concerns about the environment appear to be at odds.In Metro Vancouver the Port is discussing adding a new terminal on the sensitive migratory flyway habitat, one of the few in the world. There is also a curiously jumbo retail megamall destination built on class one farmland on the delta river floodplain. And we are going for the triple play with the building of a ten lane bridge replacing the Massey tunnel on the same arable soils, ostensibly to reduce idling and maybe to let larger vessels go up the Fraser River.
Ian Bailey writing in the Globe and Mail reports on a study for the Pembina Institute, Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions and Clean Energy Canada that puts British Columbia in the “fail” category: “The analysis of British Columbia’s recently released Climate Leadership Plan says carbon pollution from natural gas, industry and utilities, transport and buildings will hit 66 megatonnes in 2050, far more than the province’s legislated target of 12.6 megatonnes. The assessment, conducted by energy and environment consultants at Navius Research, said growing carbon pollution from the liquefied natural gas sector – assuming it comes online – and upstream shale-gas operations will constitute the largest contributor to the size of the gap with carbon pollution from LNG and natural gas doubling by 2025″.
That means that the current Provincial government will not make its goal of reducing emissions by 33% below 2007 levels by 2020. The local associate director of the Pembina Institute stated “The province is increasingly trumpeting its climate leadership but we’re not on track, and we’re going in the wrong direction from a climate and carbon pollution perspective.”
The Province’s response has been surprising, including statements that the Province has the lowest greenhouse gas emissions,and that there will be no carbon tax increase until the other provinces do it as well.
Somehow we have singlemindly looked at industry and shipping driving the economy, and forgotten that the service industry is becoming a larger component. For some reason the Province’s thinking is 20th century industry based, and not responsive to climate change indicators or the need for flexibility and adaptability as shown in Alberta. With five months left to a Provincial election, innovative thinking and ownership is needed. Our future may depend on it.
Snow covering Mount Benson as I type . . . http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.ca/2016/11/global-warming-climate-change-whats-it.html . . . beaiutiful!
In the Church of Iconoclasts everything is a conspiracy theory. And simple observations (e.g. annual snow on a mountain) prove it. The apostle Ebrahim said so. It is the Gospel of One. Believe and obey.
Roger, clearly the world is flat. Just look out your window. Can you see the curvature of the earth? No? See what I mean? Please join me in the Flat Earth Society. You’d make a perfect member. You’re just the kind of person we’re looking for.
The intransigence and stubbornness know no bounds. Christy cannot even market expensive BC LNG during a world glut, let alone admit there is a steep piggybacked carbon penalty with the stuff. She will probably claim a climate “savings” as the result of the inability to exploit and sell it. That would be cheeky to say the least.
Oh the irony. With fugitive methane and downstream emissions, expensive unconventional LNG is as dirty as coal. To market it claiming it’s a “clean” replacement for coal is disingenuous. Christy is quite smart in a sly way, but she doesn’t seem to be smart enough to understand the need for diversification in the Canadian economy. Even with all the conditional approvals in place, the gas is going to stay in the ground unfracked until the worldwide glut ends and the price increases to the point the BC product can out-compete Russia’s cheaper and much closer conventional product that will supply China for 30 years through a direct connection to a new US$400B pipeline from Siberia to their top markets. That’s a long wait.
LNG is only a dream that would merely continue the destabilizing effect all economies display when overly-dependent on the extraction of raw resources while completely exposed to steep price variations and sudden supply shortages through high-grading. Just look at the BC forestry industry to see the result, or Alberta today. Why waste all that time instead of planning for a much better – and cleaner — industrial strategy?
https://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/BC%20Office/2015/05/CCPA-BC-Clear-Look-LNG-final_0_0.pdf
If China or India or all those countries using coal replaced them each with LNG the world would be a whole lot cleaner. Is this not a worthwhile goal ?
LNG can also be used for trucks, trains and buses in cities so they too would be a whole lot cleaner.
The e-bus, e-truck, e-tractor, e-ship or widely used e-car is ways off due to 3 main issues: capacity issues ie range constraints, time to charge and cost.
As we transition off fossil fuels the next 100 years LNG is a great high energy low emission fuel for the next 100 years.
You don’t understand the underlying technology Thomas. Trains maybe, LNG in trucks and busses wouldn’t work well. The smaller the tank, the faster the stuff boils off proportional to the volume.
The stuff constantly boils away, so you don’t want it sitting for a long time. You also won’t be storing your vehicles underground or in parkades if they’re LNG powered, since they would slowly be leaking methane as it boils off.
Electricity is already in most locations that roads are located in, to use LNG like a gas station you would need a good amount of electricity to keep the stuff chilled for storage, or lose a bunch of the LNG to boil off.
Pretty soon DC fast chargers will be able to put 350kW into a battery. That’s about 2100 km per hour of charging. 10 minutes for a charge is pretty reasonable, and is about as fast as hydrogen infrastructure is. LNG likely won’t be especially quick to move either.
Batteries are the Achilles heel of e-cars. Too heavy per 100 km of distance. The energy density is just not there. Gasoline and similar fuels have 10-20 times the energy density per kg of weight. See here https://goo.gl/images/jW2MMq
Will we see more e-cars in cities: yes, but first for warmer climates, as a replacement for the second short-distance commuter vehicle in affluent two car families with a single family house. Electric charging infrastructure for condo and apartment building dwellers far more difficult and expensive to retrofit. So maybe 25% of all new cars by 2030, maybe.
I was not advocating for LNG cars, but ok for large trucks, trains, ships or certainly power generation. All coal plants will be replaced with gas fired boilers in AB, for example. If China, India etc did that they’d have far less polluted skies. That is where the opportunity for BC lies. Much opportunity here for BC, especially N-BC. Is this not win/win ie for cleaner skies and BC’s pocket book ?
Yet again, you should stick to real estate and accept your ignorance of science and engineering.
a) That chart doesn’t even reference weight. That’s volume.
b) 60kWh of batteries is now under 1000 lbs. That’s enough for a small car to go just under 400km in the EPA test cycle. The Tesla Model S has a relatively similar weight to the Mercedes S-Class, which is of similar size.
c) Energy density is misleading because it doesn’t factor in conversion efficiency. An electric motor is about 95% efficient, while a gas motor is barely able to break 30%. So the Li-ion isn’t as far off in terms of energy density as that chart implies. Hilariously you also managed to cite a cold fusion conman’s support page.
d) Battery energy density is improving very rapidly, LNG and Diesel will always have the same energy density.
e) As soon as 300-400km range is doable, the charge speed becomes the determining factor for most people.
LNG is actually a common vehicle fuel outside of North America, except that its not LIQUID natural gas, it’s COMPRESSED Natural Gas, ie CNG.
That still doesnt justify reducing taxes to essentially nothing for the industry, providing very favorable electricity rates, and increasing heavy marine traffic all for a couple hundred jobs. Better to wait and hold our resources until the market is favorable and we are in a better bargaining position. We have sold our long term resource potential for short term political gain at the bottom of the market cycle. Which regardless if global warming is real or not is bad economics.
Also, in dense cities it is more efficient to turn LNG into electric and then put that in batteries. And, if its such a good vehicle fuel, why dont WE use it? why ship it away?
Once again Thomas Beyer trumpets his lack of understanding.
Huh ? Enlighten me. What do I allegedly not understand ? The need for BC to generate tax revenue ? That gas is cleaner than coal ? That China’s skies are polluted from coal and that gas would eliminate that ? That battery storage due to physical / chemical constraints is not as energy dense as gasoline ? That condo towers will not create 200+ charge stations overnight for free ?
Happy to learn my (young?) friend !
Thomas (old man) you’ve made it very clear that you cannot be enlightened. But for the sake of others:
You can always see the stubborn fool in those who uses words like “overnight” and “immediately” as an excuse not to begin the journey. You can see more foolishness in statements that gas will eliminate air pollution.
It makes no sense to rely on resources that will see diminishing demand as a sound foundation for our provincial economy.
Re: “… gas is cleaner than coal …”
You need to improve your reading skills, Thomas, not to mention sharpen your research capability.
This is what flaring from fracked shale gas fields looks like. Note the massive size of the area, so large that it competes with big cities like Chicago to light the night sky.
http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/uhsof6tsbz1l1bwf8jym.png
Fugitive methane is essentially leaking gas that is not flared, and is invisible yet far more powerful than CO2 as a GHG. This combined with wellhead flaring and burning gas to produce electricity to freeze the gas into liquid form is what makes emissions from LNG as bad as coal.
Christy planned to use Site C to power LNG operations until she realized LNG was a pipe dream without overseas markets. Now it is proposed to sell hydro power from Site C to Alberta to offset their phase out of coal power plants. Christy wants to trade approval for the Kinder Morgan pipeline for a new hydro transmission line to Alberta. Of course, this idea also ignores the lack of overseas markets for heavy bitumen and the potential for higher rates on domestic electricity.
All of this sucks from a sound economic management and climate change policy standpoint.
If China or India or all those countries using coal replaced them with solar and wind the world would be a whole lot cleaner. Is this not a worthwhile goal ?
Electricity from solar and wind can also be used for trucks, trains and buses in cities so they too would be a whole lot cleaner.
It is small-minded people like Thomas who think we should abandon clean energy simple because we don’t have perfect solutions for a few relatively small pieces of the transportation network. We can’t fly electric planes so forget electric trains. So pathetic! I’m sure he would have fought indoor plumbing to the bitter end.
Electric trains are a no-brainer and more can be moved with them so there are fewer long-haul trucks. No problem with electric city buses and metro systems so fewer cars are needed.
“As we transition off fossil fuels the next 100 years LNG is a great high energy low emission fuel for the next 100 years.”
If we wait 100 years there is no point. Humanity won’t survive that.
“If we wait 100 years there is no point. Humanity won’t survive that.” I note your opinion. I beg to differ. It will be 2-3 degrees warmer, maybe. Great ! More flowers, lusher vegetation, longer growing seasons, less death by freezing, more ice free ports, lower heating bills. The “truth” is unknown here.
Yes we should also invest in electric, solar and wind infrastructure. Note please that they are intermittent and insufficient in the winter or when it is not windy or cloudy, especially in a cold country like Canada. As such you need either hydro, nuclear or gas fired base electricity provisioning. Even the green Germans and Danes realize it and have loads of coal plants left. “Sorry, no Netflix or internet tonight as it is not windy” is just not acceptable to consumers.
France has 70%+ nuclear. We should revisit this clean technology too.
Yes, we will see more e-cars. But, as mentioned for long distance, single car owners or those without a single family home that will take quite some time. The range is quite exaggerated too. Even the newest Tesla at $125,000 (US) can barely do 400 km, with one person. Add 2 people, turn on the heater or the A/C in summer, add some luggage and a few hills, say between here and Kelowna and the Merritt recharging infrastructure needs a major expansion. majorly. Will people accept a 3/4 wait plus a 3/4 charge time for their trip to Kelowna ?
But I’d love to see more e-cars in cities and we will see many smaller commuter cars being electric, first by affluent folks with 2 cars and a home. Why isn’t the fairly cheap Nissan Leaf not flying off the shelf today ?
Aren’t the folks that protest pipelines and LNG plants the same folks that also oppose site-C dam ? Don’t we need far more electric energy generation in BC with all them e-cars in 10-20 years ? Plus transmission grid upgrades as most buildings are not wired to support 50% of parking stalls to allow for plug-ins ?
In a growing more energy hungry world we need ALL the energy sources we can muster while phasing out the dirtiest first, i.e. coal, then burning oil for electric power, then cars and trucks over the next 50 years.
Typical Thomas: no understanding of the laws of physics nor the inability of most ecosystems to withstand 2 or 3 degrees warmer let alone the 6 or 8 we’d be heading toward after a hundred years of tepid climate action nor the even higher temperatures closer to the poles.
He lacks the basic understanding that AGW will continue long after we stop emitting GHGs. At some point, natural systems will be incapable of returning atmospheric carbon to levels fit for humans short of the geological forces that sequestered them in the first place.
Thomas thinks humanity is capable of surviving (even thriving in) extreme environmental collapse but is entirely incapable of changing our energy systems to something sustainable over a generation or two.
Nonsensically, he tries to pretend that our entire energy grid must be intermittent just because parts of it are. He seems entirely incapable of understanding simple measures to modulate supply.
Typical propaganda from the denial industry.
Thomas, you need to study up on LNG. You are confusing it with natural gas.
LNG (Liquid) isn’t flammable. You can’t burn it. I can show you videos from the development of cryogenic LNG tanks if you like. Vancouver company. Your quotes sound like you are reading off a BC Government press release.
When LNG is vaporized, then it is flammable. It can also be used then in power plants, internal combustion engines, etc. NG is cleaner burning than diesel and coal, yes, at the tailpipe. But don’t just look at the stack emissions, look at the life cycle emissions, starting at the well. If you want to convert your NG to LNG, and then back again, just to transport it, it takes additional energy at both ends. And it is more expensive to transport it. The advantage of LNG is that it is more compact than CNG, so easier to transport. That’s it. But if you can reach a destination with a pipeline, why would you ever use LNG, except for peaking capacity (ie local storage, like Tilbury)?
For mobile applications, the choice of LNG vs CNG is based on the specific of each application. We can use LNG in large over the road trucks (over 10 l engine size) but below that, CNG works pretty well. LNG can be used for locomotives, with a cryogenic tender car that will take a locomotive thousands of km. Or you could electrify the track. LNG is used by local Vancouver truck fleets for garbage transfer, milk tankers, etc. Buses are not a good fit unless they are going long distances. Buses generally return to base, so they can be refueled there, the range isn’t such a limiter. This would be much cheaper, for refueling infrastructure, fuel storage, and lower energy costs due to no liquefaction and revaporization required.
When people promote LNG, they need to cut out references to local use if that local need can be met with CNG or a pipeline. But people don’t, they think LNG is a thing that will replace other NG uses.
So will LNG replace coal? Not likely. But is it worthwhile to use NG to replace coal? Perhaps as an interim. But recognizing that we are going to have to stop using NG as well, you have to put a shorter useful life into your ROI calculator. If it is a transition fuel, then the question is “transition to what?” And if you know what the destination is, can you get there sooner? Do you need to use the transition step? Because it costs money.
It is funny when you say that e buses won’t be with us. They already are. We call them trolleys. Now you are confusing batteries with electricity. Why not trolley trucks? Batteries for local manoeuvering, loading and unloading. Drive under the trolley wire to get mains power for longer distances. Used on mine sites with large ore trucks, for uphill hauls out of the pit.
Battery Busses are also becoming more common. Edmonton just bought about 40 of them. No trolley wires required.
Author
Reblogged this on Sandy James Planner.
Some said 20 billion barrels is the largest oil discovery ever in the USA. It’s more like an expansion of the estimated existing reserves. Whatever. But, it’s things like this that have caused the Saudis to pull back.
http://oilprice.com/images/tinymce/EIApr.png
The Saudis will pull back in earnest when Iran and Russia do too. Otherwise the glut gets worse and the price sinks again. If the Saudis stick with pulling back long enough to see the shale oil in the US into steep decline (probably around 2020), then we’ll see the price skyrocket. The last time that happened it triggered a worldwide recession. It was the straw that broke the over-extended and corrupt US banking system’s back.
Regarding the Permian, here’s a link to Arthur Berman’s rather dismissive article on the topic.
http://www.artberman.com/permian-giant-oil-field-would-lose-500-billion-at-todays-prices/
The high decline rates and costs of shale and other non-conventional oil and gas has yet to be reconciled with the decreasing leveling effect of cheap conventional sources, like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia and so forth. Some of the independent analysts (Aleklett, Berman, Cobb, Hughes, Lund …) who have run the production numbers of unconventionals like shale and looked at the geology have published works outlining how the steep decline rates (often as high as 90% after only one year, and averaging greater than 50% in three years), high inherent prices and huge company debt loads will erode the economic capability of cheap oil to keep the world economy in a stable place.
That context alone — without even mentioning climate change — is enough to justify every effort to quit our addiction to fossil fuels as soon as possible.