Wednesday 5 October 2016

# 27 Climate action by China, USA and Canada


Climate action by China, USA and Canada



1

Cihina’s electric trains reduce the world’s GHG emissions.



China is competing with Japan and Europe to finance, build and profit from high speed electric railways around the world. Canada and the USA have no such railways and are seen as a lucrative market. Fast electric trains using green energy reduce train and airplane emissions. Freight trains on the same track will also cut emissions from ships.  In China many people travel in 300 km/hr bullet trains. The picture you see was the first attempt to introduce that Chinese technology in the US with a line from Las Vegas to Los Angeles. It looked very promising, the route was established, permits obtained but the deal fell apart partly because there was no compromise where the trains would be manufactured. China has had many several similar problems in other countries and starts recognizing the importance of local regulations and expectations before signing a deal. At present they look at 4 potential projects. One is to connect Asia and Europe railways via a tunnel underneath the Bering Strait to the North American network.

Apart from bullet trains it will allow transport of containers, ores, grain, potash forest products and general merchandise. Before the tunnel is built the G7G leg could be used to safely transport raw bitumen(neatbit) from Alberta to Alaska for oversea shipment to Asia, thereby avoiding contested tanker traffic through BC waters. The Alberta government commissioned a $1.8 million study and the resulting Van Horne report shows that it will be feasible. It is also quite straight and probably suitable for bullet trains. it also provides access to huge ore deposits. Only 8 trains per day are required to transport the combined volume of the two contested BC pipelines. Based on 2 years for environmental approval and 3 years construction, followed by 25 years of operation it would cost $15-$21 per barrel at 1 million barrels per day (bpd) operation and $ 12-$18 at 1.5 million bpd. The lower figures are based on delivering the oil at Delta Junction to the under-used Trans Alaska pipeline system. The oil companies that own the system recently received an additional tax break and may start producing more. In that case the G7G has to get closer to Valdez and build a pipeline to reach Valdez. In that case the higher figures apply.  These figures are consistent with published Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers’ (CAPP) estimates for railway transport of bitumen and oil products to the West Coast.



2

Previous intercontinental railway plans

The Bering crossing was first proposed in 1890. That was the year the first governor of the Colorado territory, William Gilpin, proposed linking the entire world by railroads. Two years later, Joseph Strauss proposed building a bridge across the Bering Strait as a sort of keystone for Gilpin’s plan. Nor was Strauss a mere dreamer. Instead, he went on to design 400 bridges, including the Golden Gate Bridge, although his Bering Strait Bridge remained only a concept. In 1905 Czar Nicholas II actually approved building a rail tunnel from Russia to Alaska, only to have his plan disrupted by the First World War. Since then, there have been numerous proposals to build a Bering Strait rail tunnel connecting the two continents. For instance, in August 2011, the U.K. Daily Mail newspaper reported that the Russian government approved the building of a 65-mile tunnel under the strait



3

 Carbon capture in the US and China



Both countries have submitted their emission plans, as required by at least 55 countries to ratify the Paris agreement. Another requirement for ratification is that the submissions represent at least 55% of the world’s total emissions. China and the US account for 35% of the emissions which helps a lot to reach the 55%. The latest figures I saw was that 62 countries representing 51.89% of emission had submitted their plans. Both countries count on reducing their greenhouse gas emissions by capturing the carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted by coal fired power plants. Both countries experiment with using the captured CO2 to produce fuels, plastics, fertilisers and cement, replacing the awkward and much more expensive underground storage. On a relative small scale, captured CO2 is already being converted to fuel cells which can be stored for a long time above ground. When using the fuel cells for power generation we recycle CO2 rather than adding more to the atmosphere. On average the present underground storage doubles the price of electricity from coal fired power plants. By using fuel cells this could be one-third or less according to a program manager at the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory.



 A global carbon tax would help fund the development of a thriving carbon capture and utilization (CCU) industry by paying companies per tonne of CO2. So far the operating facilities have been financed by governments, interested industries and individuals like Bill Gates. Taxing carbon has suffered from political fear mongering because it is misunderstood and the refunds are largely ignored. Both countries have carbon pricing in some regions but in the US a carbon tax discussion, leading to a global agreement seems at the moment impossible.





4

US climate action and tax problems



Mr. Trump promises that he will restore coal miner’s jobs without mentioning that it requires extensive CCU. He says that he relies on the advice of the Heritage Foundation. That is the organization which published that the Waxman Markey bill would cost the average household $3000 while it is in fact only $ 300. They left out all the refunds. His party relies on advice and considers future positions for two fossil fuel promotors, Myron Ebell and Kathleen Hartnett White. A recent desmog.ca article refers to them as climate science deniers.



In 2013 the Democratic party introduced the Sanders Boxer carbon tax bill. It is superior compared to previous cap and trade bills and would give 60% of all money collected to individuals and families. Two influential Republicans liked it because it gave better control than the EPA rulings. They also liked the extra income from the border tax adjustments. That is an import duty applicable to goods from countries with a lower carbon tax. The main media failed to stress the significance. As a result, Ms. Clinton told Mr. Sanders that his bill would never be accepted by the public. With that attitude there is little hope that taxing will be seriously discussed during the remaining debates.



5

Canada’s Carbon tax problems



British Columbia has a perfect revenue neutral carbon tax, which could easily be applied to the rest of the country but politicians have kept on misrepresenting it and winning votes by doing so.  In the second part of post 12 you can see the speech which Mr. Leef gave in the house. It ignores refunds and there was apparently no MP in the house with sufficient knowledge of the BC tax to dare countering his arguments. The BC tax works as follows:



“The law requires the BC government to produce yearly tables showing how much carbon tax was collected and how it was all refunded to people and businesses. There are at the moment 17 refund categories, 13.4% goes to poor people who pay no income tax, 19.2% to the people in the 2 lowest income tax brackets, 9.1% to other personal credits and 58.3% to businesses. The business refunds resulted in a 17% corporate tax cut and a 44% cut for small businesses. That makes BC a tax haven for foreign companies. US coal companies use it to avoid higher US taxes see posts 1 and 6 of “pipelines and carbon tax”.  The yearly tables should be published widely. You can find them in http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/tbs/tp/climate/Carbon_Tax_Report_and_Plan_Topic_Box.pdf. Since low income people drive less and have less living space to heat, they get more money back than they paid. Others have to change their consumption habits to gain from the tax. It worked. According to a recent study by the US Carbon Tax Center, per capita GHG emissions in BC dropped 12.9% and emissions dropped 20.5 % relative to our rising gross domestic product. (reference 25 in post 26 of “pipelines and carbon tax”). Earlier reports show a 17% drop in the use of petroleum products but some of it is probably caused by Canadians filling up their tanks with cheaper US gasoline.”



6

Public input towards Canada’s commitment..

To collect ideas for Canada’s submission to the UN the government established www.letstalkclimateaction.ca It is a forum where everybody could post ideas and react to the comments. No further ideas can be submitted but when you enter my name in the search bar you can read 178 comments on the following articles I submitted: The media and climate change, Safe oil export by rail, Carbon capture and utilization (CCU) essential to meet targets, Dual function of Carbon tax, Oil export alternatives, Intercontinental electric railway transport, High speed railway between China and the USA. I also commented here and there on other people’s submissions.

My comments transmitted most of the information on post 26 and quite some response came from climate change deniers. It was countered by knowledgeable individuals. A question about the site C hydro project allowed me to show in detail how much money we lose by having a vast surplus of hard to export green power. A global carbon tax would solve that problem by killing the 4c/KWh competition from fossil fuel power plants. While answering questions I saw that the BC government withdrew their claim that site C power will be cheaper than wind power. The technical briefing, showing in camouflaged text buried in a table that 2.6c/KWh had been transferred to existing facilities is, according to Google no longer available. The only other Google search result is the link to post 21 where I had listed it as reference.

7

Summary of my suggestions on the government’s forum www.letststalkclimateactin.ca

 Extend the BC carbon tax to the rest of the country. It is highly rated by other countries because it is fair, easy to implement and administer while it has proven to be effective. Canada’s move could lead to acceptance of a much needed global carbon tax. Don’t waste money on LNG projects, which according to the World Bank, CityBank, HSB, Standard&Poor, Bank of England and Goldman Sachs will become stranded assets. Export our remaining oil demand safely as raw bitumen (neatbit) by rail rather than pipelines which will become stranded assets. The G7G appears the most promising. With 8 trains per day it can bring the equivalent of 1.5 million barrels per day of diluted bitumen (dilbit) oil from Alberta to Alaska, for export to Asia. That is more than the combined volume of the two contested BC pipelines and avoids additional tanker traffic through BC waters. Since China is eager to finance and build electric railroads around the world their railroad experts are already looking at the recent Van Horne report commissioned by the Alberta government. The proposed tracks are probably straight enough to suit their plans for high speed railways covering Asia, Europe, Canada and the USA via a Bering Strait tunnel. A global carbon tax will allow BC and Ontario to export their surplus green energy without competition from 4c/KWh fossil fuel power plants. It will also pay for CCU which makes coal fired and gas fired power plants almost as clean as windmills. Not mentioned is the speech from Christina Figueres, Executive Secretary of UNFCCC. She mentions "This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight” You can see a video of her speech on https://europa.eu/eyd2015/en/unric/posts/questions-cristina-figures-cop21



8

Canada’s CCU potential

While only briefly mentioned on www.letstalkclimateaction.ca Canada’s CCU industry can be rapidly expanded. In BC we have Inventys, a company that developed the patented Veloxo Therm process, using solid absorbents and modified standard heat exchange equipment. Estimated cost for capture of CO2 from stacks is $15 per tonne, which is one third of the present cost. The company plans to build and operate its own plants at power stations, reducing the financial risk to the owners. Their pilot plant in Alberta will be financed by the government, Mitsui and Roda. Initial financing came from Suncor with ties to Chevron and Statoil. So far CCS plants in Alberta have been a miserable failure but that will change when captured carbon is converted to fuel cells, which can be stored above ground and can at any time be used for power generation or fuel airplanes. According to the US government, which funded several start-ups it will bring the cost for coal fired plants down from double to one third or less. Using fuel cells means that CO2 is recycled rather than adding to the 40% extra which we have added to the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution. We are still adding to it. When you look at the first graph on post 26 you will see that the maximum reached during 3 ice ages before the end of the last one was 295 ppm. So another fair statement is that humans caused the level to rise 34% higher than it ever was in 400,000 years spanning 3 ice ages. This CO2 increase will cause sea levels to rise much faster than previously anticipated and that is why we have to make drastic reductions in CO2 emissions, leading to 0 emissions by 2100 as agreed by the G7 nations and signed by Mr Harper in June 2015. The earlier mentioned stranded assets are a direct result of what we have to do in the coming 20 years to meet that target.

Carbon Engineering operates in BC one of three facilities in the world which capture CO2 from the atmosphere. On a small scale they have produced fuel cells and will soon produce fuel via a straight through process. Halifax based Carbon Sense Solutions accelerates the natural process of cement absorbing CO2. CarbonCure retrofits concrete plants with a technology that recycles waste carbon dioxide to make affordable, greener concrete products. In the US, the Calera company makes marine cement by adding captured CO2 to sea water. The process is still being disputed and building codes would have to change. If it is successful we can utilize it at our pulp and paper mills. They are at the sea, generate power and steam from wood waste which is a carbon neutral biomass. By capturing and utilizing the CO2 we will actually reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere. If the cement production fails, we can make fuel cells and sell them to whoever needs them.

An article, which has been accepted for publication by Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, gives many more details about utilization. It also shows how pumped storage from Europe and solar power from the Sahara can create a power distribution network in Europe where energy storage is no longer a problem. If it is wind still in one area the consumers there can rely on surplus power from elsewhere. The article is called “The pace and practicality of decarbonisation”. It was written by one of the authors of the 316 page book “Rediscovering Sustainability”. He is my brother and the other author is my sister in-law. When their book was published it inspired me to look at many associated problems, which I recorded in post 1





9

Climate change deniers



Post 25 shows that anti-green groups pay Mr. Patrick Moore for his one-sided lectures because Mr. Moore has a green background. The comments from climate deniers went much further than that. As soon as I had mentioned that humans caused 40% of the extra greenhouse gas emissions I got a message that it was only 5%. I knew what was coming. Earlier I had seen a well organized website showing with many graphs claiming that a number of scientists agree that only 5% of the GHG is CO2 and a few other gases and 95% is water vapor. Hence the whole Paris conference is a deceit. I had posted it on dessmog.ca and asked if there are any other websites to counter such an important observation. The answer was that CO2 creates the water vapor. This was not mentioned on the website. Without CO2 the world would be so cold that there would be no life at all. There was no clear answer about the percentages but I found that from a meteorologist. http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/155/  By quantity, there is much more water vapor than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Water vapor varies from a trace in extremely cold and dry air to about 4% in extremely warm and humid air. The average amount of water vapor in the atmosphere averaged for all locations is between 2 and 3%. Carbon dioxide levels are near 0.04%. That means there is more than 60 times as much water vapor in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide in average conditions. Both water vapor and Carbon dioxide are greenhouse gases. They both trap outgoing longwave radiation between the earth and the atmosphere. This has an effect of keeping temperatures warmer than they otherwise would be.” If it is 60 times at 2.5% than it will be 95 times at 4% so that settles the matter. Not so, another message came with other websites making the same claim without answering what I had sent.



Several people came with peer reviewed documents showing that the earth temperature is regulated by the activities of the sun, that we had a mini ice age and that we are now cooling towards another mini ice age. I checked on the peer review process and found that it is not perfect. The people who submit articles only grab part without reading the rest. One article showing that ice was building up in Antarctica was used as proof that the world was cooling. I read the whole article and saw that it was only temporarily and that the arctic and glacier melt was far more than the Arctic increase, hence it was proof of global warming. One other article submitted describes the climate change scientists as “upper-crust of well-paid hacks, attending fancy meetings, and luxuriating at our expense”. It also states that many scientists signed a petition showing doubt about climate change: The purpose of the Petition Project is to “demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis” This resulted in my question:  So please come up with the list of the 31,487 Americans with university degrees in science who signed the petition. Just state the university, year they graduated, past and present climate change occupation. By knowing who these scientists are, it will allow the “hacks” to question them why they signed the petition. That will start a scientific discussion and will lead to a solution. I sent it twice but never got an answer.



10

China’s efforts to spread their railway expertise



The picture above shows the proposed XpressWest bullet train between Las Vegas and Los Angeles. The recent deal with a Chinese partner fell apart so they are looking for other financing. Meanwhile in June the South China Morning Post, from which I got the picture states:  “There is no doubt about China’s expertise, but success also involves studying the legal and political environments of host countries before rushing into a deal” It also shows lost or shaky deals in Mexico, Indonesia, Thailand and India to finance high speed railroad systems without considering the local rules and expectations. The China to US railway via a 200 km long tunnel underneath the Bering Strait is now one of four projects which are seriously studied. One high speed track in Russia is already under construction. In 2015  Vladimir Yakunin, the 66-year-old head of Russian Railways, had already unveiled detailed plans for what may seem like an impossible infrastructure. “Yakunin proposed engineers could build a high-speed railway through the entirety of Siberia, effectively making ground transportation possible from Anchorage to Moscow—or for that matter, New York to Paris. Or, if we’re going to go there, Miami to Johannesburg”.  It has been picked up by at least 7 newspapers which added their own stories about previous attempt to connect the US railways with Europe and Asia. The consensus is that bullet trains won’t be profitable by themselves but that it offers ample of opportunities for containers, minerals, potash, grain and general merchandise. It will be electric, fed by green energy. That will not only eliminate GHG emissions from the trains but also cut on emissions from ships and airplanes. Shown below is a more detailed story, which I submitted to the government forum www.letstalkclimateasction.ca

Later on I discovered on http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/world/americas/chinas-ambitious-rail-projects-crash-into-harsh-realities-in-latin-america.html?_r=0 That the South Americans are afraid that China will dominate them with all their developments. Here is part of an article by By SIMON ROMERO OCT. 3, 2015 including a statement from a politician:



China has sought to build a “dry canal” in the form of a railway across Colombia, linking the Caribbean to the Pacific. Chinese investors announced another huge venture in Honduras, two ports and a 375-mile railroad from sea to sea. Then this June, China announced yet another megarailway — nearly 10 times as long — across Brazil and Peru, stretching from one coast of South America to the other.



“We’re experiencing the downside of our overreliance on China now that the opaque Chinese economy is in flux,” he added. “Imagine what will happen if this railway somehow advances, bringing with it environmental devastation and even more leverage for China in our affairs.”



Last November, Mexico abruptly canceled a Chinese-led bid to build a $4.3 billion high-speed rail system after accusations that the Mexican government had favored contractors who were part of the consortium



Here follows what I wrote to the government on www.letstalkclimateaction.ca.  It shows many hyperlinks to source documents. The South China Morning Post and the Van Horn report are in my view the most significant.



High speed railway between China and the USA

Theme:Clean technology, innovation and job creation

Submitted by Neil Heesterman  on 09/27/2016 1474953412




When I submitted “Intercontinental electric railway transport” Theme:Clean technology, innovation and job creation Submitted by Neil Heesterman on 09/18/2016 , it was based on information from http://www.vanhorne.info/research-publications/alberta-alaska-railway , http://www.interbering.com/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bering_Strait_crossing

It looked feasible, considering that China has in other projects offered to build and finance them, but expects the money back in the end through fees or rents. Electric railways around the world, powered by green energy will not only eliminate railway emissions but also that of ships and airplanes. While offered as high speed passenger trains, I think other uses will be more profitable until a global carbon tax has been established. Recently I saw that the announcements by the Siberian Times and the China Daily were picked up by the Guardian, CNN, National Post, Independent UK, Country Guard and a number of other papers as hyperlinked below. Several gave additional information. There is also a June 2016 article in the South China Morning Post which describes the problem: “There is no doubt about China’s expertise, but success also involves studying the legal and political environments of host countries before rushing into a deal” Most papers had their own observation about the project.

The South China Morning Post article goes on to state: “High-speed trains are fast, efficient, cost-effective on middle distances and environmentally friendly. Those are the main reasons China has built the world’s largest network of more than 19,000km of track and is eager to export its technology and expertise. More than two dozen countries have shown interest, but only a few contracts have been signed. The reason is simple enough: even the best of ideas need to be backed by understanding and preparation.

US firm ends links with Chinese company helping it build high-speed rail link from Las Vegas to Los Angeles

Those would seem to have been lacking by both the Chinese and American partners in plans for a line from Los Angeles to Las Vegas. The announcement of the project on the eve of President Xi Jinping’s (習近平 ) visit to the US last September was seen as a major boost to China’s ambitions. No truly high-speed system operates in the country, so the deal offered prestige and an edge on European and Japanese competitors. Yet nine months later, China Railway International and XpressWest earlier this month disclosed the end of their alliance for conflicting reasons”



“Differing priorities were behind the collapse of a deal between Chinese firms and Mexico in 2014, another with Indonesia has got off to a bumpy start and been delayed while Thailand said in March it did not want Chinese financing for a project. China lost out to Japan last December for India’s first high-speed line, although it is bidding for its second.”



“Bidding is under way for Southeast Asia’s first line, from Kuala Lumpur to Singapore. A win would add to the nation’s first overseas contract, signed last June to construct a line in Russia from Moscow to Kazan.”



The Moscow Kazan line was mentioned in 2015 by Vladimir Yakunin, the 66-year-old head of Russian Railways, who unveiled detailed plans for what may seem like an impossible infrastructure. “Yakunin proposed engineers could build a high-speed railway through the entirety of Siberia, effectively making ground transportation possible from Anchorage to Moscow—or for that matter, New York to Paris. Or, if we’re going to go there, Miami to Johannesburg”.



Most articles copy the body of the announcements but add their own observations. I quote in part: “What if Canadian farmers had a choice of more than just CN and CP rail to move their grain? Imagine the opportunities our agriculture would have if we weren’t restricted because of the limited trackage to the coasts, a shortage of hopper cars, a lack of pulling power, and increasing competition from oil and other goods for rail movement.”” Maybe, this scenario is possible. In fact, this very solution to our current transportation log-jam was first proposed in 1890! That was the year the first governor of the Colorado territory, William Gilpin, proposed linking the entire world by railroads.”“Two years later, Joseph Strauss proposed building a bridge across the Bering Strait as a sort of keystone for Gilpin’s plan. Nor was Strauss a mere dreamer. Instead, he went on to design 400 bridges, including the Golden Gate Bridge, although his Bering Strait Bridge remained only a concept.”“In 1905 Czar Nicholas II actually approved building a rail tunnel from Russia to Alaska, only to have his plan disrupted by the First World War. Since then, there have been numerous proposals to build a Bering Strait rail tunnel connecting the two continents. For instance, in August 2011, the U.K. Daily Mail newspaper reported that the Russian government approved the building of a 65-mile tunnel under the strait. In 2014, the Beijing Times reported China was looking at building a 10,000-km high-speed rail link between China and the U.S. via a Bering Strait tunnel.”The Beijing Times listed the China-US line as one of four international high-speed rail projects currently in the works. The first is a line that would run from London via Paris, Berlin, Warsaw, Kiev and Moscow, where it would split into two routes, one of which would run to China through Kazakhstan and the other through eastern Siberia. The second line would begin in the far-western Chinese city of Urumqi and then run through Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Iran and Turkey to Germany. The third would begin in the south-western city of Kunming and end in Singapore. The routes are under various stages of planning and development, the paper said.



Most probably China has looked at the Van Horne study for the G7G railway. From what I have seen, the layout and provision for future double tracking will make it suitable for high speed and increased capacity. It can ship 1.5 million barrels per day of Alberta oil via Valdez to China with a single track using only 8 trains per day. China may be interested to build it well ahead of the tunnel. They better study the first nations involvement and wildlife requirements before going too far.



I agree with Dr. Allan M. Zarembski, a professor and director of the Railroad Engineering and Safety Program at the University of Delaware, who told The Week: among other things: If, for some reason, people decide to take a two-day train from San Francisco to Beijing, rather than a 12-hour flight, the economics are nonetheless an absolute disaster. There’s no way this could pay its way back.”Until a global carbon tax makes air travel more expensive I see, apart from the oil to Valdez a future in container travel from Europe and Asia to and from Canada, the US and Mexico. There will also be the minerals grain, potash and forest products export to Europe and Asia.

Much more can be found in the following documents:

http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1978990/china-should-solve-politics-export-high-speed-rail

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/08/chinese-experts-discussions-high-speed-beijing-american-railway

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/24/travel/trans-siberian-road/

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/china-mulling-construction-of-high-speed-train-through-canada-to-the-u-s-report

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/russia-unveils-plans-for-high-speed-railway-and-superhighway-to-connect-europe-and-america-10132564.html

http://anonhq.com/china-plans-8000-mile-high-speed-train-to-america-via-125-mile-undersea-tunnel/

https://www.rt.com/usa/157940-china-us-railway-siberia-bering/

http://www.country-guide.ca/2015/04/17/moving-canadian-products-to-china-by-railway/46495/