Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands

Status
Not open for further replies.
ThE world does not care. 7 million and counting voted.
They care about cell phone access more than global warming which is last on the poll.



http://data.myworld2015.org
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nobel laureate Al Gore predicted that the Arctic would be ice-free on December 10, 2014, but that doesn’t appear to have occurred, Arctic sea ice extent has been at or near a decadal high every day for the past two months.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    53.4 KB · Views: 44
If Only We Had Listened To The Experts In 1986
Posted on December 20, 2014 by stevengoddard
In 1986, “big league climatologists conveyed with great authority” that global warming would kill us all by the year 2000.

EARTH’S CLIMATIC CRISIS EXAMINED BY ‘NOVA’ – NYTimes.com

Had we listened to the experts in 1986, we wouldn’t all be dead now.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    51.3 KB · Views: 43
Stuff your stockings with B.C. coal

VICTORIA - No matter whether you light the menorah, trim the tree or setup the Festivus Pole, your holiday activities likely have a connection to a lump of coal mined right here in British Columbia.
From the planes, trains and automobiles that are used to transport holiday gifts, to the stores where those gifts are sold - they all require steel. That steel is made using metallurgical coal.
Upwards of 90% of the coal produced in British Columbia is metallurgical coal. In 2013, B.C. exported more than 28 million tonnes of metallurgical coal.
Planning to drive to the mall over the holidays? There are approximately three million cars in B.C. and it takes roughly 630 kilograms of metallurgical coal to produce a single vehicle.
Nothing says Canadian winter like lacing up the ice skates for a game of hockey. The steel blades that make breakaway goals possible start out as metallurgical coal.
Coal production is a mainstay of the province’s economy, generating billions of dollars in annual revenue and supporting thousands of well-paying jobs. Coal production currently represents over half of the total mineral production revenues in the province.
Quote:

Minister of Energy and Mines Bill Bennett -

“Most people don’t think of coal when they go shopping for gifts, but the fact is without the coal that is mined right here in British Columbia, we wouldn’t have access to things like smartphones, cars or even shopping malls.
British Columbians can take pride in knowing that no matter the product or where it was made, it probably wouldn’t exist without B.C. coal.”
http://www.newsroom.gov.bc.ca/2014/12/stuff-your-stockings-with-bc-coal.html

You just can't make up stuff like this.....
How stupid are these folks? Plenty it seems...
Using the headline "
Stuff your stockings with B.C. coal" as their press release... Brian dead...

Ignoring the title which is rather meaningless what do you think the point of the article/idea being conveyed was?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.pressprogress.ca/en/post...y-things-stephen-harper-said-peter-mansbridge

Dec 18, 2014 by PressProgress

VIDEO: Fact-checking five "crazy" things Stephen Harper said to Peter Mansbridge


We thought Stephen Harper hit peak "crazy" last week.

But the prime minister may have reached a new plateau Wednesday night, rattling off the word "crazy" a handful of times during an exchange about oil and the environment with Peter Mansbridge on CBC. Our musical "fact check" video covers some of his most outrageous statements, followed by a five-point breakdown.


The breakdown:

1. Stephen Harper now likes the idea of "a job-killing carbon tax"

For the first time, Harper said he would be willing to accept a price on carbon pollution.

Harper told Mansbridge that Alberta's carbon pricing system could "go broader," suggesting new openness to the idea of implementing a carbon levy on a national scale.

This is surprising news given Harper has run an ongoing "smear campaign" against the NDP for the last two years, branding the Opposition's cap-and-trade policy a "job killing carbon tax" (apparently, anything that puts a price on carbon is a "tax"). Ironically, the Conservatives campaigned for a cap-and-trade plan in the 2008 election. Talk about "flagrant hypocrisy"!

2. Blame Mexico!

Harper also attempted to clarify his recent statement that regulating the oil and gas industry, as his government has been promising for nine years, is "crazy economic policy."

"What is crazy," Harper explained, are economic policies that "shift jobs and development to other parts of North America."

What is shifting, however, is Harper's explanation for why he won't regulate the oil and gas industry. Previously, Harper has said that Canada would only take action to reduce our emissions if America took action first:


"If the Americans don't act, it will severely limit our ability to act. But if the Americans do act, it is absolutely essential that we act in concert."

Well, now that the United States has pledged to reduce greenhouse gases, Harper's new line appears to be that he wants a "continental response" -- "not just with the United States." He'd like to see action from "Mexico, as well."

Looks like no one told Harper that Mexico introduced a carbon tax earlier this year.

3. Harper may now consider ISIS and the 2008 recession to be greater threats to the "future of humanity" than climate change

When Mansbridge asked Harper if he still believes climate change is "the biggest threat to confront the future of humanity today" (a remark Harper made in 2007), we learned Harper may have reevaluated his list of top threats to our species to now include jihadism and a recession that happened six years ago.

"Geez, where does it rank in terms of our economic challenges, in terms of the jihadism that we now face globally?" Harper said. "I mean since then we've had the global recession and we've had the rise, you know, the kind of second phase rise of the, of the global terrorist movement so I would put those up there as well."

4. Despite what Environment Canada says, Stephen Harper believes greenhouse gases are in decline

One reason climate change may have dropped on Harper's threat list is because he says greenhouse gas emissions are in decline -- a claim that is at odds with Environment Canada.

"Look, for the first time in history, this country actually has GHG emissions that have been falling," Harper told Mansbridge.

"Anybody can go around talking about targets," Harper replied when Mansbridge asked if Canada would meet its emissions targets in line with the 2009 Copenhagen Accord. "What's the actual results. Ours have been going down."

The actual results, according to Environment Canada:



While Canada's GHG emissions did drop following the recession, they've picked back up and are projected to increase.

Canada's Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development has said that the regulations the government has put in place under Harper only gets us "seven per cent of the way" to meeting our Copenhagen target.

5. Who really believes Stephen Harper could manage a clean technology fund?

Harper also mused about the idea of using the revenues from a carbon levy to create a clean technology fund.

On the surface, this sounds like a great idea, but it's not clear that Harper's Conservatives are the most credible bunch to administer such a fund.

Only a few days before the interview aired, the Hill Times reported that Natural Resources Canada "failed to spend a total of $321-million Parliament approved for 'environmentally responsible' programs" aimed at "renewable energy development, alternative transportation fuels, energy efficiency and technology innovation."

Meanwhile, the government overspent their budget by nearly 10% on "programs that primarily supported the oil and gas sector through scientific research, market development and government advertising," including "an ad blitz promoting Canadian oil and Keystone XL in key cities like Washington in the U.S.," despite the PR campaign having "little impact" according to the government's own review.
 

Attachments

  • environment-canada-emissions-chart.jpg
    environment-canada-emissions-chart.jpg
    16 KB · Views: 34
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...f-investments-stranded-in-the-oil-fields.html

Bankers See $1 Trillion of Zombie Investments Stranded in the Oil Fields

By Tom Randall Dec 17, 2014 9:52 PM PT

Photographer: Mark Ralston/AFP via Getty Images

A disused mining machine is displayed in front of an oil sands extraction facility near the town of Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada.



There are zombies in the oil fields.

After crude prices dropped 49 percent in six months, oil projects planned for next year are the undead -- still standing upright, but with little hope of a productive future. These zombie projects proliferate in expensive Arctic oil, deepwater-drilling regions and tar sands from Canada to Venezuela.

In a stunning analysis this week, Goldman Sachs found almost $1 trillion in investments in future oil projects at risk. They looked at 400 of the world’s largest new oil and gas fields -- excluding U.S. shale -- and found projects representing $930 billion of future investment that are no longer profitable with Brent crude at $70. In the U.S., the shale-oil party isn’t over yet, but zombies are beginning to crash it.

The chart below shows the break-even points for the top 400 new fields and how much future oil production they represent. Less than a third of projects are still profitable with oil at $70. If the unprofitable projects were scuttled, it would mean a loss of 7.5 million barrels per day of production in 2025, equivalent to 8 percent of current global demand.

How Profitable Is $70 Oil?

Source: Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research. Annotated by Tom Randall/Bloomberg

Making matters worse, Brent prices this week dipped further, below $60 a barrel for the first time in more than five years. Why? The U.S. shale-oil boom has flooded the market with new supply, global demand led by China has softened, and the Saudis have so far refused to curb production to prop up prices.

It’s not clear yet how far OPEC is willing to let prices slide. The U.A.E.’s energy minister said on Dec. 14 that OPEC wouldn’t trim production even if prices fall to $40 a barrel. An all-out price war could take up to 18 months to play out, said Kevin Book, managing director at ClearView Energy Partners LLC, a financial research group in Washington.

If cheap oil continues, it could be a major setback for the U.S. oil boom. In the chart below, ClearView shows projected oil production at four major U.S. shale formations: Bakken, Eagle Ford, Permian and Niobrara. The dark blue line shows where oil production levels were headed before the price drop. The light blue line shows a new reality, with production growth dropping 40 percent.

Even $75 Oil Crashes the Shale-Oil Party

Source: ClearView Energy Partners LLC


The Goldman tally takes the long view of project finance as it plays out over the next decade or more. But the initial impact of low prices may be swift. Next year alone, oil and gas companies will make final investment decisions on 800 projects worth $500 billion, said Lars Eirik Nicolaisen, a partner at Oslo-based Rystad Energy. If the price of oil averages $70 in 2015, he wrote in an email, $150 billion will be pulled from oil and gas exploration around the world.

An oil price of $65 dollars a barrel next year would trigger the biggest drop in project finance in decades, according to a Sanford C. Bernstein analysis last week.

A pause in exploration and development may sound like good news for investors concerned about climate change. A vocal minority have been warning for years that potentially trillions of dollars of untapped assets may become stranded due to climate policies and improved energy efficiency. The challenges faced by oil developers today may provide a small sense of what's to come.

However, these glut-driven prices can’t stay low forever. Oil production hasn’t slowed yet, but as zombie projects go unfunded, it will. This is how the boom-bust-boom of the oil market goes: prices fall, then production follows, pushing prices higher again. The longer this standoff goes, the more zombies will languish and the sharper the rebounding price spike may be.
 

Attachments

  • iKGdEIeNFYvw.jpg
    iKGdEIeNFYvw.jpg
    20.1 KB · Views: 34
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141215185356.htm

Switching to vehicles powered by electricity from renewables could save lives
Date: December 15, 2014
Source: University of Minnesota
Summary: Driving vehicles that use electricity from renewable energy instead of gasoline could reduce the resulting deaths due to air pollution by 70 percent. This finding comes from a new life cycle analysis of conventional and alternative vehicles and their air pollution-related public health impacts. The study also shows that switching to vehicles powered by electricity made using natural gas yields large health benefits.

Driving vehicles that use electricity from renewable energy instead of gasoline could reduce the resulting deaths due to air pollution by 70 percent.
Credit: © Dmitry Vereshchagin / Fotolia
[Click to enlarge image]

Driving vehicles that use electricity from renewable energy instead of gasoline could reduce the resulting deaths due to air pollution by 70 percent. This finding comes from a new life cycle analysis of conventional and alternative vehicles and their air pollution-related public health impacts, published Monday, Dec. 15, 2014, in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The study also shows that switching to vehicles powered by electricity made using natural gas yields large health benefits. Conversely, vehicles running on corn ethanol or vehicles powered by coal-based or "grid average" electricity are worse for health; switching from gasoline to those fuels would increase the number of resulting deaths due to air pollution by 80 percent or more.

"These findings demonstrate the importance of clean electricity, such as from natural gas or renewables, in substantially reducing the negative health impacts of transportation," said Chris Tessum, co-author on the study and a researcher in the Department of Civil, Environmental, and Geo- Engineering in the University of Minnesota's College of Science and Engineering.

The University of Minnesota team estimated how concentrations of two important pollutants -- particulate matter and ground-level ozone -- change as a result of using various options for powering vehicles. Air pollution is the largest environmental health hazard in the U.S., in total killing more than 100,000 people per year. Air pollution increases rates of heart attack, stroke, and respiratory disease.

The authors looked at liquid biofuels, diesel, compressed natural gas, and electricity from a range of conventional and renewable sources. Their analysis included not only the pollution from vehicles, but also emissions generated during production of the fuels or electricity that power them. With ethanol, for example, air pollution is released from tractors on farms, from soils after fertilizers are applied, and to supply the energy for fermenting and distilling corn into ethanol.

"Our work highlights the importance of looking at the full life cycle of energy production and use, not just at what comes out of tailpipes," said Bioproducts and Biosystems Engineering Assistant Professor Jason Hill, co-author of the study. "We greatly underestimate transportation's impacts on air quality if we ignore the upstream emissions from producing fuels or electricity."

The researchers also point out that whereas recent studies on life cycle environmental impacts of transportation have focused mainly on greenhouse gas emissions, it is also important to consider air pollution and health. Their study provides a unique look at where life cycle emissions occur, how they move in the environment, and where people breathe that pollution. Their results provide unprecedented detail on the air quality-related health impacts of transportation fuel production and use.
"Air pollution has enormous health impacts, including increasing death rates across the U.S.," said Civil, Environmental and Geo- Engineering Associate Professor Julian Marshall, co-author on this study. "This study provides valuable new information on how some transportation options would improve or worsen those health impacts."

Story Source: The above story is based on materials provided by University of Minnesota. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

Journal Reference: Christopher W. Tessum, Jason D. Hill, and Julian D. Marshall. Life cycle air quality impacts of conventional and alternative light-duty transportation in the United States. PNAS, December 15, 2014 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1406853111 http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1406853111
 
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141215114059.htm

Migrating 'supraglacial' lakes could trigger future Greenland ice loss
Date: December 15, 2014
Source: University of Leeds
Summary: Predictions of Greenland ice loss and its impact on rising sea levels may have been greatly underestimated. Supraglacial lakes are darker than ice, so they absorb more of the Sun's heat, which leads to increased melting. When the lakes reach a critical size, they drain through ice fractures, allowing water to reach the ice sheet base which causes it to slide more quickly into the oceans. These changes can also trigger further melting.

Supraglacial lakes on the Greenland ice sheet can be seen as dark blue specks in the center and to the right of this satellite image.
Credit: USGS/NASA Landsat
[Click to enlarge image]
Predictions of Greenland ice loss and its impact on rising sea levels may have been greatly underestimated, according to scientists at the University of Leeds.

The finding follows a new study, which is published today in Nature Climate Change, in which the future distribution of lakes that form on the ice sheet surface from melted snow and ice -- called supraglacial lakes -- have been simulated for the first time.

Previously, the impact of supraglacial lakes on Greenland ice loss had been assumed to be small, but the new research has shown that they will migrate farther inland over the next half century, potentially altering the ice sheet flow in dramatic ways.

Dr Amber Leeson from the School of Earth and Environment and a member of the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling (CPOM) team, who led the study, said: "Supraglacial lakes can increase the speed at which the ice sheet melts and flows, and our research shows that by 2060 the area of Greenland covered by them will double."

Supraglacial lakes are darker than ice, so they absorb more of the Sun's heat, which leads to increased melting. When the lakes reach a critical size, they drain through ice fractures, allowing water to reach the ice sheet base which causes it to slide more quickly into the oceans. These changes can also trigger further melting.

Dr Leeson explained: "When you pour pancake batter into a pan, if it rushes quickly to the edges of the pan, you end up with a thin pancake. It's similar to what happens with ice sheets: the faster it flows, the thinner it will be.

"When the ice sheet is thinner, it is at a slightly lower elevation and at the mercy of warmer air temperatures than it would have been if it were thicker, increasing the size of the melt zone around the edge of the ice sheet."

Until now, supraglacial lakes have formed at low elevations around the coastline of Greenland, in a band that is roughly 100 km wide. At higher elevations, today's climate is just too cold for lakes to form.

In the study, the scientists used observations of the ice sheet from the Environmental Remote Sensing satellites operated by the European Space Agency and estimates of future ice melting drawn from a climate model to drive simulations of how meltwater will flow and pool on the ice surface to form supraglacial lakes.

Since the 1970s, the band in which supraglacial lakes can form on Greenland has crept 56km further inland. From the results of the new study, the researchers predict that, as Arctic temperatures rise, supraglacial lakes will spread much farther inland -- up to 110 km by 2060 -- doubling the area of Greenland that they cover today.
Dr Leeson said: "The location of these new lakes is important; they will be far enough inland so that water leaking from them will not drain into the oceans as effectively as it does from today's lakes that are near to the coastline and connected to a network of drainage channels."

"In contrast, water draining from lakes farther inland could lubricate the ice more effectively, causing it to speed up."

Ice losses from Greenland had been expected to contribute 22cm to global sea-level rise by 2100. However, the models used to make this projection did not account for changes in the distribution of supraglacial lakes, which Dr Leeson's study reveals will be considerable.

If new lakes trigger further increases in ice melting and flow, then Greenland's future ice losses and its contribution to global sea-level rise have been underestimated.
The Director of CPOM, Professor Andrew Shepherd, who is also from the School of Earth and Environment at the University of Leeds and is a co-author of the study, said: "Because ice losses from Greenland are a key signal of global climate change, it's important that we consider all factors that could affect the rate at which it will lose ice as climate warms.

"Our findings will help to improve the next generation of ice sheet models, so that we can have greater confidence in projections of future sea-level rise. In the meantime, we will continue to monitor changes in the ice sheet losses using satellite measurements."

Story Source: The above story is based on materials provided by University of Leeds. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

Journal Reference: A. A. Leeson, A. Shepherd, K. Briggs, I. Howat, X. Fettweis, M. Morlighem, E. Rignot. Supraglacial lakes on the Greenland ice sheet advance inland under warming climate. Nature Climate Change, 2014; DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2463 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2463
 
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/12/22/3606131/269-sunken-turbines-tidal-power-scotland/
ThinkProgress Logo
269 Sunken Turbines To Make Scotland Home To World’s Largest Tidal Farm
by Ari Phillips Posted on December 22, 2014 at 9:30 am Updated: December 22, 2014 at 12:58 pm

The world’s largest tidal energy project, capable of powering nearly 175,000 homes in the U.K. with 400 megawatts of power, will break ground next month in northeast Scotland. Atlantis, majority owner of the MeyGen project, announced that its flagship project had met all the conditions required to start drawing down finance through the U.K.’s Renewable Energy Investment Fund.

The completed project will have 269 sunken turbines, according to Atlantis, which expects to have about 60 of these installed and delivering power by 2020.

In the announcement to investors, Atlantis said: “The major construction and supply contractors to this iconic project have commenced design, engineering and procurement works in readiness for commencement of onshore construction at the project site in Caithness in January 2015.”

Tim Cornelius, Chief Executive Officer of Atlantis, said that Lockheed Martin’s project-specific 1.5 megawatt turbines were scheduled to be delivered on time for construction purposes. In November, the MeyGen project was awarded the first-ever Navigator Award at the International Conference on Ocean Energy, in recognition of the “project’s significant contribution to global marine renewable industry.”

Scotland is trying hard to harness all forms of renewable energy as part of its goal of generating 100 percent of its electricity demand from renewables by 2020. The wind-rich country is home to around a quarter of Europe’s total offshore wind capacity. In October, the Scottish Government approved four huge new offshore wind farms that could produce more than 2.2 gigawatts of power, enough to power 1.4 million homes.

Atlantis is also working on tidal energy projects off the coast of Canada. The firm was recently awarded a Feed-in Tariff for up to 4.5 megawatts of tidal generation to be deployed at the Fundy Ocean Research Center for Energy (FORCE) in Nova Scotia, Canada.

“We are delighted that the Nova Scotia Government has chosen to make this substantial award to Atlantis,” said Cornelius. “Having also reached financial close on the first phase of our MeyGen project in Scotland, we are building momentum on our projects around the world, realizing our goal of bringing cost-effective clean energy to market at commercial scale — on both sides of the Atlantic.”

However there are still many challenges ahead for the company and the tidal and wave power industries. Atlantis’ share price dipped on Friday, with the company saying it “knows of no trading or operational reason to warrant this change.”

The Scottish government is also struggling to support large wave energy companies, and has been accused of “pulling the rug” out from under at least two of these major companies as commercial success had yet to materialize.

In the wake of these recent wave power failings, Brian Wilson, U.K. energy minister between 2001 and 2003, wrote that “we should not give up on marine renewables” even if they are oversold to the public and overhyped for their benefits, making them almost guaranteed to disappoint.

“The same problems and challenges exist around the world. But for heaven’s sake, spare us the political hype and downright deceptions. If these technologies are ever going to deliver anything, it will be on the basis of technology — not the spin of politicians.”
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ThE world does not care. 7 million and counting voted.
They care about cell phone access more than global warming which is last on the poll.

http://data.myworld2015.org

So now your argument is we should listen to the results of a popularity contest?
Who the eff cares what people think.... the science is clear that we have a problem that needs to be addressed. Did you not view that last video that I posted? Your team is missing in the debate and if your team continues down that path your not going to like the solutions that will get put into place. Climate skeptics argue about the third decimal point and climate deniers just argue that it's not happening. Clearly your team is in a very sad state.
 
Nobel laureate Al Gore predicted that the Arctic would be ice-free on December 10, 2014, but that doesn’t appear to have occurred, Arctic sea ice extent has been at or near a decadal high every day for the past two months.
Another classic climate denial cherry pick of the data. Why is it your team does this? Perhaps it's because you have lost the debate and your scrambling to save face. It's not working as the real data always wins out. Again you show us your complete disregard of the facts and somehow you want us to believe that you are telling us the truth. You have a credibility problem and it's not helping by you going down this path.

N_stddev_timeseries.png


monthly_ice_NH_11.png


Does that look like things a normal in the Arctic?
Get your science from here not some bubble head denial website.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
 
If Only We Had Listened To The Experts In 1986
Posted on December 20, 2014 by stevengoddard
In 1986, “big league climatologists conveyed with great authority” that global warming would kill us all by the year 2000.

EARTH’S CLIMATIC CRISIS EXAMINED BY ‘NOVA’ – NYTimes.com

Had we listened to the experts in 1986, we wouldn’t all be dead now.

Oh yes we would be all dead now..... LOL is that your new argument? We are not dead so man made global warming is not true. Please, your getting close to rock bottom in your credibility rating when you post such nonsense. Quit starring at Steve's gonads website, there is nothing there that is creditable. You are following sheep that are headed for slaughter when it comes to policy in the future. The question is with your side MIA in the debate of what to do you may not like how that turns out.
 
Ignoring the title which is rather meaningless what do you think the point of the article/idea being conveyed was?

That's a very interesting point there 3x5.
First it's hard to ignore the title as whoever thought of that clearly flunked media 101. What does that say about our leaders that something so dumb could pass as a press release?
Second and to the point is I for one would like more information on this whole metallurgical coal. What is the percentage that is used in the steel and what percentage is used to burn making that steel. Do you know and do you have any links that tell us? I did a quick search and could not find that info. It's something that is very important when we are looking at expanding coal in this province. Clearly we need to look at all sources of CO2 and find solutions that work to reduce them. Our kids and future generations are counting on us.
 
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/12/22/3606131/269-sunken-turbines-tidal-power-scotland/
ThinkProgress Logo
269 Sunken Turbines To Make Scotland Home To World’s Largest Tidal Farm
by Ari Phillips Posted on December 22, 2014 at 9:30 am Updated: December 22, 2014 at 12:58 pm

The world’s largest tidal energy project, capable of powering nearly 175,000 homes in the U.K. with 400 megawatts of power, will break ground next month in northeast Scotland. Atlantis, majority owner of the MeyGen project, announced that its flagship project had met all the conditions required to start drawing down finance through the U.K.’s Renewable Energy Investment Fund.

The completed project will have 269 sunken turbines, according to Atlantis, which expects to have about 60 of these installed and delivering power by 2020.

In the announcement to investors, Atlantis said: “The major construction and supply contractors to this iconic project have commenced design, engineering and procurement works in readiness for commencement of onshore construction at the project site in Caithness in January 2015.”

Tim Cornelius, Chief Executive Officer of Atlantis, said that Lockheed Martin’s project-specific 1.5 megawatt turbines were scheduled to be delivered on time for construction purposes. In November, the MeyGen project was awarded the first-ever Navigator Award at the International Conference on Ocean Energy, in recognition of the “project’s significant contribution to global marine renewable industry.”

Scotland is trying hard to harness all forms of renewable energy as part of its goal of generating 100 percent of its electricity demand from renewables by 2020. The wind-rich country is home to around a quarter of Europe’s total offshore wind capacity. In October, the Scottish Government approved four huge new offshore wind farms that could produce more than 2.2 gigawatts of power, enough to power 1.4 million homes.

Atlantis is also working on tidal energy projects off the coast of Canada. The firm was recently awarded a Feed-in Tariff for up to 4.5 megawatts of tidal generation to be deployed at the Fundy Ocean Research Center for Energy (FORCE) in Nova Scotia, Canada.

“We are delighted that the Nova Scotia Government has chosen to make this substantial award to Atlantis,” said Cornelius. “Having also reached financial close on the first phase of our MeyGen project in Scotland, we are building momentum on our projects around the world, realizing our goal of bringing cost-effective clean energy to market at commercial scale — on both sides of the Atlantic.”

However there are still many challenges ahead for the company and the tidal and wave power industries. Atlantis’ share price dipped on Friday, with the company saying it “knows of no trading or operational reason to warrant this change.”

The Scottish government is also struggling to support large wave energy companies, and has been accused of “pulling the rug” out from under at least two of these major companies as commercial success had yet to materialize.

In the wake of these recent wave power failings, Brian Wilson, U.K. energy minister between 2001 and 2003, wrote that “we should not give up on marine renewables” even if they are oversold to the public and overhyped for their benefits, making them almost guaranteed to disappoint.

“The same problems and challenges exist around the world. But for heaven’s sake, spare us the political hype and downright deceptions. If these technologies are ever going to deliver anything, it will be on the basis of technology — not the spin of politicians.”

Cool, let's build some right here on the Island. I think it'll fly and get great public support. What do you think?

Edit; I looked but my Googlefu is weak today, anyone know what kind of area 269 turbines and associated infrastructure would occupy on the bottom?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's a very interesting point there 3x5.
First it's hard to ignore the title as whoever thought of that clearly flunked media 101. What does that say about our leaders that something so dumb could pass as a press release?
Second and to the point is I for one would like more information on this whole metallurgical coal. What is the percentage that is used in the steel and what percentage is used to burn making that steel. Do you know and do you have any links that tell us? I did a quick search and could not find that info. It's something that is very important when we are looking at expanding coal in this province. Clearly we need to look at all sources of CO2 and find solutions that work to reduce them. Our kids and future generations are counting on us.

I thought it was a pretty interesting article and have no doubt why the headline was chosen nor do I confuse a newspaper editor with one of our leaders. Although with the general publics lack of critical thinking they certainly can influence opinion. Papers are business' and as such want to sell papers so they'll use attention grabbing headlines. I like that it points out that there's more than one use for coal as I suspect if you asked 100 people on the street what coal was used for somewhere near zero would ask what kind. Instead they'd say dirty power, GHG, C02 etc...... I don't know the usage split numbers either and would be curious to know, look out Google here I come. Also if people want to take it one step further before they choose a side on the expansion debate hopefully they can ask themselves if they're ready for the sacrifices required to negate the need for expansion. You know like new boat trailers and pick ups.

Our kids and future generations are counting on us.

Admirable and noble stance to be sure but may not really be reality based. Just like the energy industry this one works to satisfy the wants and needs of an ever growing population that isn't willing to give up the things required to make the expansion or even current production go away. They'll make a bunch of money doing so because they're good at what they do, which will probably **** a bunch more people off as the socialists hate success. As oil prices drop watch consumption rise on the personal level. People (the same ones that battle expansion of all resource extraction) will burn more gas this summer than last if it's still cheap (relative term). Stop with the crotch fruit already people that's the real problem!!

PS; You never did answer my question you stayed hung up on the title.

Edit; couldn't find the precise breakdowns in the time available this morning but did learn a couple things, 75% of met coal is used for iron the rest for smelting other metals. Canada supplies (that's nationally not provincially) about 3% of the worlds needs, Japan is the largest importer not China, 90% of BC's exported coal is met coal. So globally we're a fart in the wind. Whether the ore is heated with coal, natural gas, or electricity (likely derived from burning coal as it's still the largest source of electricity globally) the reality is still the same. It's going to expand with the population unless we're all prepared for some major changes to our personal lives. So one can choose to support Canadian coal, jobs and the economy or other producers like Australia which is likely comparable or our good buds in Russia as they're the next 2 above us global production wise. Ideals vs reality.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh yes we would be all dead now..... LOL is that your new argument? We are not dead so man made global warming is not true. Please, your getting close to rock bottom in your credibility rating when you post such nonsense. Quit starring at Steve's gonads website, there is nothing there that is creditable. You are following sheep that are headed for slaughter when it comes to policy in the future. The question is with your side MIA in the debate of what to do you may not like how that turns out.

I don't agree with his stance on Climate Change but I'm pretty sure the point he was making was about the accuracy of scientific predictions.
 
http://wcel.org/resources/environme...t-community-dialogue-session-s?utm_source=LEB


West Coast and NWI Launch North Coast Community Dialogue Session Series on LNG and Cumulative Impacts Management


18 December, 2014

On December 11, West Coast Environmental Law, along with the Northwest Institute for Bioregional Research (NWI), co-hosted the first of a series of community dialogue sessions on LNG and cumulative impacts management. We held the opening session in Prince Rupert last week and were moved by the depth of knowledge, thoughtfulness and concern that participants brought to the session. The objective of the event was to bring together First Nations, concerned citizens, business owners, health workers, local governments and non-profit organizations to begin to talk about the overall picture of LNG development in the region.

There are eight LNG projects proposed in the Prince Rupert region today, seven in Kitimat, one in Kitsault and one in Stewart. That is a total of 17 speculative LNG projects at various stages in the application and review phases. Yet to date there isn’t much “big picture” consideration about the combined impacts of these proposals to values we all care about.

West Coast and the Northwest Institute, alongside many First Nations and local governments, have been encouraging the provincial government to undertake a big picture “regional strategic environmental assessment” that would address this problem because to date provincial regulatory decision-making, in particular the B.C. environmental assessment process, has not adequately reviewed cumulative effects.

At the dialogue session in Prince Rupert last week, we shared information with one another and began to tackle tough questions such as the following:
•What are the core values that must be protected when considering industrial development, such as pipelines across BC and LNG plants on the coast?
•What range of development scenarios are really plausible?
•How do we make wise decisions about the right pace and scale of development for our communities?

One of the recurring themes in our discussion was the deep love and commitment that people have for the north coast, and the stress and uncertainty many are feeling over what the future holds. While many diverse viewpoints were expressed at the session, one point on which there was strong agreement was the need for local communities to have a meaningful say in decision making that impacts their land and water.

We are looking forward to many more rich discussions with communities across the north in the coming months. After the dialogue sessions are complete, we will report back to communities about the themes and questions raised, and also plan to produce a report identifying gaps in the current environmental assessment processes and offer recommendations regarding how these gaps might be filled. We hope that by sharing this report with governments - including First Nations, federal, provincial, and municipal, as well as other organizations that are interested in managing the cumulative impacts of resource development - that we can help catalyze action to ensure that the pace and scale of development in the north, including LNG development, safeguards and enhances what we value.

By Hannah Askew, Staff Counsel

If you’d like to attend one or more of the upcoming dialogue sessions, or want more information, please email Hannah at Hannah_askew@wcel.org or Valine Crist at Valine@northwestinstitute.ca
 
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2014/12/2...ce=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=231214

BC's LNG Strategy Is Not Climate Friendly

Despite environment minister's claims, it won't displace coal in Asia.

By Josha MacNab, Today, TheTyee.ca

World leaders gathered in Lima, Peru, this month for global climate change talks. British Columbia's Environment Minister Mary Polak was among them. She shared the province's successful experience in implementing commendable climate policies, like B.C.'s carbon tax -- a policy that the president of the World Bank hailed as a "powerful example" of carbon pricing.

However, Minister Polak also included the province's liquefied natural gas export aspirations as part of B.C.'s climate success story, arguing that LNG will displace coal in Asia. Unfortunately, the evidence doesn't support this claim.

LNG versus coal

Compared against each other, a coal-fired electricity plant will produce more carbon pollution than a gas-fired electricity plant on a life-cycle basis if methane emissions from natural gas extraction are well managed. But research from the Pembina Institute and the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions shows that, without strong climate policies, increasing the supply of gas in the global market does not lead to the displacement of more polluting energy sources like coal. It simply feeds an increasing energy demand with additional fossil fuels, putting the world squarely on track for dangerous climate change.

A study published recently in Nature supports this conclusion. For natural gas to displace carbon-intensive forms of energy like coal there need to be climate policies in place that shift investment decision-making. A strong carbon price, for example, would provide an incentive to replace coal plants with lower-carbon energy alternatives.

The recent China-U.S. climate agreement is an example of a step in the right direction towards what is needed to encourage the development of climate policies that could result in LNG replacing coal in China. However, the same climate policies that shift investments towards lower-carbon choices ultimately result in a decrease in the demand for all fossil fuels, including natural gas. In fact, as part of that agreement, China plans to increase the share of non-fossil fuels in its primary energy consumption to around 20 per cent by 2030.

Gas as a 'bridge fuel'

Our research shows that less natural gas will be used in a world with strong climate policies. In the short term, and in the context of strong climate policy, natural gas can act as a "bridge fuel" that helps the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy and more energy efficiency. To keep the planet below an average of 2°C of global warming (the internationally recognized limit to avoid dangerous climate change), that bridge must be very short: by 2030 natural gas demand would peak, and by mid-century it would fall below current levels.

Governments and industry also need to get better at measuring methane emissions that result from the extraction of natural gas. Recent studies have concluded that this carbon pollution is higher than previously estimated. This means that the role for natural gas as a bridge fuel in a carbon-constrained world could be even shorter, unless methane management practices improve significantly.

An economic risk

Not only is it inaccurate to claim that LNG is a "climate solution," it's also economically unwise. Tying B.C.'s economic engine to a resource that will decline in 15 years if governments around the world implement strong climate policy is a recipe for a major boom and bust -- something many B.C. communities are unfortunately all too familiar with.

Instead of focusing so intently on LNG, B.C. should look at what types of energy solutions will be needed with strong climate policies in place, and figure out how to supply those needs. In such a world, the International Energy Agency predicts that by 2035 demand for renewable energy would increase by 127 per cent over 2011 levels. Meanwhile, total energy demand is predicted to go down globally by 20 per cent relative to a world without strong climate policies, thanks to the rise of energy efficiency and conservation.

This represents a massively growing global market for clean energy technology and services, one in which B.C. already has an advantage. For example, analysis from consulting firm KPMG found 200 clean technology companies operating in the province, employing over 8,000 people and generating $2.5 billion in annual revenue, primarily from exports. Many of these companies are well positioned to take advantage of a growing market for clean energy.

There are many ways B.C. can and should play a productive role in global climate change initiatives. Fortunately, with its track record of implementing credible climate policies, a global reputation for climate leadership and a growing clean energy sector, B.C. has a lot more to offer the world than more fossil fuels.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top