Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands

Status
Not open for further replies.
Money Talks.


VICTORIA - The Nisga'a Nation has signed an agreement with the B.C. government to receive benefits from proposed liquefied natural gas projects.

The band from the northwest coast would get at least $6 million from the province for a proposed natural gas pipeline that would pass through parts of its treaty lands.

The Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Pipeline would service the proposed multibillion-dollar Petronas Pacific Northwest LNG project at Lelu Island.

The Nisga'a deal also ensures the First Nation will receive a yet-to-be-determined share of $10 million in ongoing benefits from the pipeline.

Nisga'a Nation president Mitchell Stevens says elders, chiefs and elected representatives voted to support the agreement, which includes removing more than 63 hectares of land from the Nisga'a Memorial Lava Bed Park to accommodate the pipeline.

Stevens says the Nisga'a are on board when it comes to LNG development, but the final decision rests with Petronas, which has yet to decide whether to proceed with its project.



Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/busines...0193/story.html?__lsa=6a95-7076#ixzz3JfZXW8aw
 
Peer reviewed..
So, now i see it is not very difficult to get peer reviewed papers.
Sure takes the credability away.


http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/1...ed-rant-as-peer-reviewed-paper/#__federated=1

You can't be serious. Even the article puts both ‘Science journal’ and ‘peer-reviewed’ in quotes and refers to the sites as 'bogus'. No real scientist pays attention to this crap and neither should you. As someone with a little over a 100 peer reviewed articles to my name, it's not that easy.
 
Agreed. Thought it would get a rise .
 
[h=1]Hunters, Anglers, and Climate Change[/h]Published on Mar 27, 2013
Capturing the first-hand views of climate change impacts through the eyes of sportsmen, anglers, hunters, and outdoor enthusiasts.
[eEMt8Mf6NGU] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEMt8Mf6NGU#t=381
 
Published on Oct 24, 2013
Scientists, researchers and resource managers in Ontario's Ministry of Natural Resources are seeing changes which are likely a result of a changing climate. This video provides a collection of observations, with reflection on how to respond to a changing environment.

Should efforts be made to resist these changes, or directed to mitigate the effects? How can managers manage resources which are in flux? This is the dilemma facing the government whose role it is to manage natural resources.
[8aEhNRffAvw] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aEhNRffAvw
 
[h=1]Ontario's Natural Resources and Climate Change - Part Two[/h][25hjwmq31dU] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25hjwmq31dU#t=707
 
There are in fact two things , science and opinion,The former begets knowledge , the latter ignorance " Hippocrates

This is opinion as noted in article.



Published on Oct 24, 2013
Scientists, researchers and resource managers in Ontario's Ministry of Natural Resources are seeing changes which are likely a result of a changing climate. This video provides a collection of observations, with reflection on how to respond to a changing environment.

Should efforts be made to resist these changes, or directed to mitigate the effects? How can managers manage resources which are in flux? This is the dilemma facing the government whose role it is to manage natural resources.
[8aEhNRffAvw] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aEhNRffAvw
 
OBD - one thing you never seem to address/discuss is the issue of ocean acidification due to CO2. The data there is IMHO far less ambiguous. It may also be the case that ocean acidification bites us fisherman in the butt far sooner than climate change. Do you believe that ocean acidification is happening and that it is largely caused by man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 or do you have some other view?
 
Published on Nov 18, 2014
http://www.Co2ldWaters.org
Conservation Media produced CO2LD WATERS for our client Conservation Hawks. The film stars Craig Mathews of Blue Ribbon Flies, Yvon Chouinard of Patagonia, Steve Hemkens of Orvis, Tim Romano of Angling Trade, and Todd Tanner of Conservation Hawks. The film looks at the single biggest threat to the future of angling: Climate Change.
[o8KRdu84PNY] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8KRdu84PNY
 
Published on Mar 24, 2013
Late season hunting! Big bull elk, monster whitetails, hunter's orange, the smell of woodsmoke and the crackle of the campfire ... & the Ghost of Christmas Future!

[BXrf7v6c6Dw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXrf7v6c6Dw
 
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/27/the-ocean-is-not-getting-acidified/
Explains it well.


OBD - one thing you never seem to address/discuss is the issue of ocean acidification due to CO2. The data there is IMHO far less ambiguous. It may also be the case that ocean acidification bites us fisherman in the butt far sooner than climate change. Do you believe that ocean acidification is happening and that it is largely caused by man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 or do you have some other view?
 
http://wcel.org/resources/environme...communities-and-our-coastlines?utm_source=LEB

RISING to the challenge and protecting our communities and our coastlines
19 November, 2014
We’ve all seen some of the graphic images of flooding along the East Coast of the United States in recent years: neighbourhoods where streets have become canals, an oddly picturesque parking lot full of yellow taxis floating in blue water up to their windshields, and not-so-picturesque images of people assessing the wreckage of their homes and belongings.

Here on the West Coast we might not have to worry about hurricane season, but on the other hand we don’t really have any reason to be complacent. Climate scientists and our own provincial government are warning that we should prepare for at least 1 meter of sea level rise by 2100, along with more extreme weather events. Given that we have, particularly in the Lower Mainland, a significant concentration of urban development along our shorelines, this should be reason to give us all pause. Paying the Price, a 2011 report from the now-defunct and sadly missed National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy suggested that the annual costs associated with flood damage to dwellings in coastal BC could approach $4 billion by 2050. Are we going to keep building in these vulnerable areas? And what are we going to do about the development that is already there?

RISE, a recent competition organized by Simon Fraser University, asked entrants to come up with a visionary solution to make the greater Vancouver area more resilient to sea level rise. West Coast Environmental Law teamed up with DG Blair from the BC Stewardship Centre and Cathy LeBlanc, a senior planner at the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development to propose that an “old” idea—relying on natural shorelines to create a buffer zone for seaside properties—was an effective means to protect our communities from the impacts of rising seas if it was applied in a new way on a larger scale.

Heading down to the SFU’s Segal Building on a Sunday afternoon in October, along with 29 other teams we pitched our idea to a panel of three judges. Somewhat to our surprise, we found ourselves in the final round of ten, with five minutes to make our case to another panel of judges, with all of the teams and members of the public looking on.

No one can really argue with the fact that the foreshore, the intertidal zone, supports a rich and diverse habitat. A picture of a beautiful heron standing in the shallow waters off Port Moody helped us make this point. Surrounding our coastal communities with hard edges like dikes and sea walls means the end of this intertidal zone as the sea rises. Instead of shifting landward, beaches are stopped by walls and will simply disappear under water. This is sometimes called “coastal squeeze” and it’s one of the damaging impacts of climate change on our urbanized coastlines.

But the game-changer for us in thinking about resilience to sea level rise was new research commissioned by Green Shores, an initiative of the BC Stewardship Centre. This research shows that natural and restored shorelines can effectively buffer upland properties against the 1 m of sea level rise projected for our region by 2100. What’s more, naturalized shorelines required only 30-70% of the upfront costs of more conventional approaches, such as sea walls. Other researchers have come to similar conclusions when looking at coastal areas in the United States.

Apparently the judges agreed with us, because we were awarded the prize for Best Environmental Idea. Congratulations to all the other winners, and all the competitors.

Now the hard part begins—how to implement this idea in practice. Unlike many coastal regions in the United States, in BC we don’t have coastal management legislation or a framework that could support a coordinated effort to protect our coastlines and increase resilience of urbanized areas.


Sea walls limit foreshore habitat.
Existing legal and policy protection has decreased in recent years, with the dissolution of federally coordinated oversight and protection bodies like the Fraser River Estuary Management Program (FREMP) and the Burrard Inlet Environmental Action Plan (BIEAP), and the recent gutting of federal legislation that protected the marine environment such as the Fisheries Act and the Navigation Protection Act.

Jurisdiction over the coastline is a legal patchwork of provincial Crown land policies, federal port and fisheries jurisdiction, direct control by First Nations as Indian reserve or treaty lands as well as unceded traditional territories, and limited regulation by local governments. At present there is no integrated or overarching strategy to manage and protect our shorelines in south Coast regions like the Lower Mainland.

While sea level rise is a big challenge, it is also an opportunity to find some common ground and remedy this lack of coordinated oversight and protection for our valuable coastlines. There are no easy answers, and multiple levels of government need to be involved: provincial, First Nations, federal and local. As well, a focal point needs to be established for research activities that can tap into the academic resources in the region.

Our current workplan for West Coast’s Liveable Sustainable Communities program involves exploring how existing law and policy can be flexed to support coastal and community protection (and where reforms are needed) as communities begin to address sea level rise, and promoting regional and sub-regional collaboration among policymakers.

By Deborah Carlson, Staff Counsel

Photos courtesy of Picture BC.
 
http://collectionscanada.gc.ca/weba...nge-for-canada/paying-the-price-coastal-areas

Paying the Price – Coastal Areas

Canadians living in coastal areas are accustomed to the hazards of shifting sea levels and storm surges. Climate change will exacerbate existing risks, exposing 3,000 to 13,000 more homes to flooding by mid-century.

Paying the Price - Coastal Areas ImageCanada has a vast coastline stretching 243,000 kilometres along three marine coasts. One in six Canadians lives within 20 kilometres of a marine coast.44 Coasts are an important source of recreation and livelihoods for many more. Coastal communities have a long history of contending with the hazards of flooding and erosion, but climate change is a new force that heightens risks to people, property, and the environment along coastal areas.

In a changing climate, the combined effects of accelerated coastal erosion, sea-level rise, and a greater frequency and intensity of storm surges could lead to permanent loss of land, temporary flooding, freshwater salination, damage to property, and disruption of key economic activities, among other impacts. Our understanding of the way that climate change could impact the coasts has recently improved. A nationwide study assessed Canada’s sensitivity to sea-level rise and found that one-third of our coastline is moderately or highly sensitive including 80% of the Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island coasts. The high concentration of people and expensive infrastructure in Metro Vancouver make this area particularly vulnerable. A few local and regional studies have assessed the impacts and costs of climate change for built infrastructure and homes, with most of them focusing on the East Coast. Beyond this, little research exists estimating the likely costs of climate change for Canadian coastal areas; this study will begin to fill that gap.



Impacts of climate change on coastal areas

COASTAL FLOODING IMPACTS

By the 2050s, in a given year, between 33,000 and 38,000 square kilometres (km2) of land will be at risk of flooding, with between 2,000 and 7,000 km2 of this area at risk due to climate change
Impacts are uneven across regions.
By the 2050s, in any given year, 16,000 to 28,000 dwellings will be at risk of permanent flooding from sea-level rise and temporary flooding from storm surges.
The majority of dwellings at risk are in British Columbia — about 8,900 to 18,700 by the 2050s
Land area at risk of flooding

Land area at risk of flooding as percentage of total land area by region, 2050s

ECONOMIC IMPACTS

The annual cost of flooding of dwellings due to baseline risks and climate change could be $4 billion to $17 billion by the 2050s.
In absolute numbers, most of these costs are associated with dwelling damages in British Columbia
Per capita costs are highest in Nunavut, British Columbia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island.
Overall, these costs could represent 0.2% to 0.3% of Canada’s GDP each year by the 2050s while cumulative costs over the century could range from $109 billion to $379 billion using a 3% discount rate.
ADAPTATION STRATEGIES

Strategies to adapt to sea-level rise and the risk of storm surges are well known and fall into three broad categories: retreat, accommodate, and protect. “Retreat” involves moving away from vulnerable areas, “accommodate” involves, for example, redesigning homes and changing land use practices in a way that copes better with flooding and saltwater intrusion, and “protect” includes natural and engineered coastal defences to reduce flooding.

Our goal was to assess the cost effectiveness of two adaptation strategies of national application:

(1) Climate-wise development planning: The first strategy prohibits future construction in areas expected to be at risk of flooding by 2100 in a high climate change scenario. In this proactive strategy, the number of dwellings at risk of flooding stays at current levels, with existing dwellings being rebuilt following storm surges. No additional growth is allowed in these areas.

(2) Strategic retreat: The second strategy entails a gradual abandonment of newly flooded areas. That is, we assume that the flooding takes place and the reactive adaptive response is to relocate to a safe area.

Both adaptation strategies reduce the costs of climate change but strategic retreat yields benefits one order of magnitude higher than climate-wise planning. This is because in the climate-wise planning strategy, existing homes that are flooded by storm surges continue to be rebuilt over and over during the century, accumulating costs each time. With a policy of strategic retreat, damaged homes are abandoned and the price of rebuilding them is invested instead into homes in less risky areas.

When both adaptation strategies are pursued in combination, they could lower the cumulative costs of climate change impacts down to $1 billion to $6 billion over the century. Using climatewise planning and strategic retreat in combination, cumulative damages are just 3% to 4% of the costs without adaptation to climate change.
 

Attachments

  • paying-the-price-figure10-eng.jpg
    paying-the-price-figure10-eng.jpg
    35.3 KB · Views: 27
  • paying-the-price-figure11-eng.jpg
    paying-the-price-figure11-eng.jpg
    26.9 KB · Views: 27
  • paying-the-price-figure12-eng.jpg
    paying-the-price-figure12-eng.jpg
    58.7 KB · Views: 27
Interesting article.
Really shows the costs vs energy source.
OBD this article below was based on a price of $1.00 a Watt panel. Currently it's now down to $.75 and projections for 2015 is around $.45 so contrary to your advice it sure looks like this will happen sooner than later.

GabEnergy: helping Gabriolans take back their power
by Chris Bowers
Monday, July 7, 2014

http://www.flyingshingle.com/cgi-bin/coranto/viewnews.cgi?id=20140707162430929438

If you’re feeling powerless about increasing energy costs, or would like to enjoy the financial benefits of solar power but don’t have the money or space for a solar array, you may be interested in what GabEnergy – Gabriola’s latest registered non-profit – is up to.

The group is focussed on “farming photons” GabEnergy member Michael Mehta said in a Wednesday interview at his home on Berry Point Road, and that farming is being done in two fields.

The first is to sell solar equipment at cost to Gabriolans, said Mehta, who has a demonstration solar array at his home. He said their panels have been able to surpass “grid parity … our non-profit pricing makes the cost of energy lower than what you can buy it for from at BC Hydro”.

But GabEnergy is also launching an energy co-operative, Mehta said, through which members can buy shares on one or more solar panels that will be erected throughout the community. Members will receive dividends from the electricity that the co-op sells back to BC Hydro, he said.

GabEnergy has a two-part mandate, Mehta explained. The first is to help residential, commercial, and non-profit energy consumers set up renewable energy systems, with a focus, for now, on photo-voltaic power.

The second mandate, Mehta said, which includes a partnership with privately-owned Bullfrog Power, “is the creation of a community cooperative where people who can’t or don’t want to have a solar photo-voltaic system on their house can own the equivalent of a panel or more in a community-owned facility”.

Those panels could be on someone else’s house, or a commercial roof, or in a field, Mehta said – “somewhere where the power characteristics are ideal” – so those in the shade, and/or members who can’t afford an entire array at once can still benefit from the produce of the photon farmers.

The co-op will primarily be an “accounting provision,” Mehta said, and it “stimulates market forces to create more and more renewable energy”, so that the percentage keeps increasing.

The production of the green power benefits the province and the environment, while members get the revenue they would receive if they had a panel or an array on their house, Mehta said.

Mehta noted that while smart meters are required for the community-based arrays, members of the co-op could benefit from buying into the community power program co-op even if they have refused a smart meter.

Net metering
As for GabEnergy’s program to sell solar panels and infrastructure “at cost”, Mehta explained that while old solar systems were expensive and required a lot of infrastructure, nowadays a “grid tie” is available for those who are already hooked up to BC Hydro.

Solar power producers will still be connected to BC Hydro, Mehta said, but they create a “micro-grid” of renewable energy.

Photon farmers set up a grid-tie account with BC Hydro, which Mehta described as a simple process, after which “they will basically turn the switch, and it’s a revenue meter”.

“When you’re producing power from your solar panels,” Mehta said, “your house is using it first” to run appliances. That power “is coming right off your solar panels,” Mehta said, “so you’re not actually buying the energy from BC Hydro … you’re your own utility operator.”

“When you start to produce more than you’re using in the day,” Mehta continued, “you generate a credit, and that gets banked with BC Hydro, there’s an annual reconciliation, and at the end of the year if you have excess in your credit, they will pay you 9.99 cents per kilowatt hour for your excess that you put back into the grid.”

Grid is the ‘battery’
This means you don’t have to store energy, Mehta said. “The grid is your battery,” he said, “and they take care of all the accounting. It’s seamless.”

“Your inverter, that converts the power from solar DC (voltage) to (household) AC also has a meter,” Mehta said, “so it tells how much you’ve produced.”

Further, Mehta said, unused energy goes to neighbours first, which “cuts down on the amount of energy BC Hydro has to produce from other sources in the province,” as well as cutting down on transmission costs and line losses from moving the electricity long distances.

GabEnergy is hoping that enough Gabriolans will erect their own solar arrays to produce enough power through the day to cover Gabriola’s total annual power needs, Mehta said.

Still access the grid
When you use more power than you are producing, Mehta said, you draw it back off the grid, and are charged for the amount you use, minus the amount you are producing.

The goal is to produce as much power as possible on sunny days, and to “bank it,” Mehta said. He said his small 1,100 watt system of five panels can completely power his house and create credit between 10 am and 4 pm on most days.

Gabriola gets about 2,000 hours of sunlight per year, Mehta said. At a conservative estimate, he said, in the right spot a 10 kilowatt– or 40 panel – system “would practically run your house fully for the entire year”.

The bills are reconciled annually, Mehta said, but invoices will tell photon farmers how much credit they’ve produced at the end of each billing cycle. He also noted that if they can stay at the first BC Hydro billing level of 7.52 cents per kilowatt hour (kwh), the 9.99 cents per kwh that solar users are paid for producing power means they are actually making more than they pay.

Payback time
Assuming the system runs for the 25 years for which it is warranted, Mehta said, a 10 kw system will produce 275,000 kwh. He said that system will cost about $17,500 to $20,000.

That locks in the cost of power at 6.3 cents per kwh, he said. Thus, because Gabenergy is not charging any profit on the equipment, he said solar power is “cheaper than it is to buy it from BC Hydro”.

A 10 kw system “will save you $65,000 on electricity bills” over 25 years, Mehta said. “There’s nothing that you can add to your house, except these kinds of systems that will generate income,” he said.

“This isn’t just about putting up panels,” Mehta added, “it’s about creating a culture shift – a new economy.”

However, GabEnergy is not recommending people install solar energy systems until they have made their homes as energy efficient as possible, Mehta said.

Energy co-op
On the other hand, Mehta said, anyone can join the energy co-op. He said members have only one vote each, but they may buy as many shares as they want.

Membership prices have not been established yet, Mehta said, but he thought they would be in the neighbourhood of $500 per share, which is what a solar panel and infrastructure costs. He thought that investment would likely produce an annual dividend of $30 per year.

GabEnergy would like to hear from residential and commercial landowners who would be interested in setting up co-op solar arrays on their roofs or land, Mehta said.

 
just putting out the information.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top