Summary
The delay of 3 pipelines from Alberta has increased rail
transport to such extent that most of the oil gets out anyway. Possibly we lost
some business but that oil volume will have been supplied by other countries so
the increase in the world’s GHG emissions remains unchanged. Only a global
carbon tax will make oil expensive, encouraging the use of electricity for land
transportation. Oil products will always be needed to power ships, fly
airplanes and produce many of our goods. Canada has one disadvantage. We use a
lot of fossil fuel to extract the oil but that can be rectified by wind and
solar power as soon as a global carbon tax has been established or Alberta is
forced to cut down drastically on fossil fuel, like the US did with their new
EPA regulations. Alberta can develop a lot more solar and wind power and BC
could sell 45% of its green energy to Alberta by increasing its windpower from
1.5% to 20%. A carbon tax is needed to make this possible because in North
America there is still a lot of cheap electricity traded. A lot of It is
generated by coal and natural gas power plants.
A carbon tax will also encourage the use of Carbon
Capture and Storage (CCS). By giving carbon tax credits to companies that
extract CO2 from smokestacks or the atmosphere those companies
become more competitive. Norway has an offshore tax of $ 75 per tonne of CO2,
It costs Statoil $17 per tonne for CCS so the company gains $ 58 per tonne. In addition
it stopped the burning off of excess natural gas from oil wells. If the BC
carbon tax of $ 30 per tonne of CO2 would apply world wide CCS would
save Coca Cola $ 42,900 per day. The CO2 emissions from Coca Cola
are 3,300 tonnes per day and since the CO2 does not have to be
stored underground the CCS cost is unlikely to exceed that of Statoil, Without
CCS it would cost Coca Cola $99,000 per day in carbon tax to fill up their
bottles and cans. So this would be a win win situation. The company gains while
there is no GHG increase in the atmosphere. Also some additional jobs are created
in the CCS industry,
Alberta still loses $15 billion per year in revenue due
to poor access to Asian markets. This will only change when either the 2
contested BC pipelines or the proposed G7G railway have been completed. In the
meantime we have to campaign for a global carbon tax allowing us to use green
energy for oil extraction. The main media does not release much of these
environmental considerations hence I hope that in particular the younger people,
who have to suffer the most when we don’t reverse the trend, will use their
social media to promote the global carbon tax.
In Canada
many people oppose the carbon tax because it is seen as a tax grab rather than
a tax shift. The Canadian Government keeps portraying it as a tax grab in order
to win votes. Meantime other countries can’t stand our attitude hence the
pipeline protests continue. To make carbon tax acceptable it has to be made
clear how people get their money back. In the US one carbon pricing bill was
defeated partly because people were told they would share in dividends
from the sale of auctioned pollution allowances. The British Columbia tax has
reduced the use of petroleum products by 17% without loss of GDP. 37% of all
tax collected is paid out to low income earners, 11% to other personal credits
and 52% to businesses. In the US the Sanders Boxer bill, yet to be passed, will
return 60% of all tax collected to households, 25% to debt reduction and 15%
towards green projects. It will raise additional money by imposing import duties
(border tax adjustments) on good from countries without carbon tax.
One way to make
your voice count is to follow some of the articles on www.desmog.ca , write a comment and share it with your
family and friends via facebook, google plus or any other communication tool.
Please copy and paste any text from this post or other posts while mentioning
that the details can be found on www.neilwilhees.blogspot.ca. Except for summaries each statement is hyperlinked to
source documents. Earlier posts show references to EP and CT documents which
show text and hyperlinks.These EP and CT documents were u attachments to 3
emails to the Canadian government and 5 to Enbridge to show in 2013 how much
opposition there was to the Northern Gateway pipeline and how that could be
lessened by changing our carbon tax policy and publishing far more technical
information about the past problems and required improvements of pipelines.
Most of the observations in those emails are now post 1 of this blog. Enbridge
has a copy of post1 with a special note that at the very end there is a list of
unanswered questions. Most questions are still relevant and part of them apply
to all pipelines.
You will note that this post shows some promising
development in solar technology and battery storage. The efficiency of solar
panels can be improved quite a bit and cost per KWh is coming down. Energy
storage for homes and businesses was made cheaper and simpler by Tesla
batteries. Five days after the company announced production plans , 38,000
reservations had been made for the powerwall unit and 2,500 reservations for the much
bigger, commercial-scale battery systems. That shows that there is a real
interest in renewable energy. It will lower the required peak power generating
capacity for hydro plants.
A)
The
importance of carbon tax
Had the pipeline protesters fought for a carbon tax there
might have been some progress. Until a global carbon tax has been established
demand for oil will keep rising and it makes little difference in the world’s
greenhouse gas emission which country or which pipeline supplies the extra oil.
The amount of fossil fuel used to extract the oil is a consideration. A carbon
tax is an important incentive to use renewable energy for that extraction. British
Columbia has better wind conditions than most provinces and 31 hydro storage
reservoirs where excess wind power can be stored to obtain an even export flow.
The clean energy act limits fossil fuel power generation to 7% and encourages
export by creating excess hydro capacity to meet peak demands by hydro alone
because during those cold winter nights there may be no wind. By increasing the
wind power from the present 1.5% to 20%, utilizing the 17.5% over capacity and
redirecting the power obtained from the Columbia River Entitlement, British
Columbia could make 45% of its power available to help Alberta improve the oil
sands image. Due to a lack of carbon tax this is not yet possible. Power from
new hydro stations or wind farms costs about 8.5 cents/KWh but is at times hard
to sell, even at 4c/KWh because the North American net is still fed by many
coal or natural gas fired power plants producing it so cheaply.(post 21) The 8.5c/KWh for wind power is conservative.
Present day wind turbines produce 15 times more electricity than 1990 models (1)
and the levelized cost for some installations can be as low as 3.7c/KWh (2)
B)
Many
busineses are well ahead of politicians by demanding carbon pricing
If the British Columbia carbon tax were to be applied
globally it would increase the price of thermal coal by 70% (post 17), which
would force many coal fired plants to phase out or switch to natural gas. It
produces only half the amount of greenhouse gases compared to coal. The world’s
largest oil company and 2 other major ones have large natural gas reserves.
They demand a global carbon tax so they can profit from increased gas sales.
Cathay Pacific, the world’s third largest airline is very fuel efficient and
demands the global tax because higher fuel prices will make them even more
competitive. Other major multinationals who demand the tax are in the food
processing, construction, computer, insurance and petrochemical business(post
12) These are just a few of the over 1000 businesses from more than 60
countries who signed communiqués demanding global carbon pricing. Most
Canadian oil companies already use a "shadow" carbon price to write
their long-term budgets, assuming a higher price is coming. The current shadow
price ranges from about $30 to $40 a tonne.(23)
It shows how taxing can reduce emissions without having
to resort to special subsidies. Present carbon tax systems provide subsidies to
individuals and businesses that use below average fossil fuel. Many people
still don’t realize that a well defined carbon tax returns the money to the
public in predictable amounts so that those who spend below average on fossil
fuel get more money back than they paid. The proposed US Sanders Boxer bill
will return monthly 60% of all tax collected to households. (post 20) In
British Columbia the government has to show yearly how all money collected was distributed.
48% goes to households, which includes 37% to low income earners.(post 19)
C)
Solar
power versus wind power and battery storage
In populated areas solar panels on roof tops are much
more acceptable than wind mills. The official US figures show 8.7c/KWh for
onshore wind versus 14.4 c/KWh for PV solar(3) but the technology is moving
fast and costs are bound to drop rapidly. In the last five years the solar energy
capacity has increased six fold (4). While rooftop solar still costs 14.4c/KWh
utility solar is now available for 6-8.6c/KWh (2). Theoretically
70 % of all the solar energy striking the solar panels can be converted to
electricity. The commercial panels
available today have an efficiency of 15 %. A theoretical efficiency of 60 % can be
achieved by converting the solar energy that heats up the panels into
electricity as well. (5). Diamond films can increase the efficiency from
15 to 50% and the panels last longer. There are a number of other improvements
which could make solar more efficient. These are triple junction cells, peal
and stick panels, nanowire panels and light splitting panels, (5, 6)
The recently announcement by
Tesla Motors that they will produce wall mounted batteries (power walls) for
homes and large battery packs for commercial applications will give a further
boost to solar energy. When equipped with solar panels a $3500 wall mounted
battery, guaranteed for 10 years could store enough energy to supply a house
without external power supply.(7) This is a great advantage for people in
remote areas which rely on diesel but it is already speculated that, “like with
cell phones, customers will jettison their landlines”. That seems unlikely
considering that most people will want to sell surplus power and buy during
unusual dark periods. Public acceptance has been great. Just 5 days after Elon Musk announced the news he
mentioned that they already received 38,000 reservations for the Powerwall which
will start shipping this summer. There are 2,500 reservations for the much
bigger, commercial-scale battery systems. That's a lot in less than a week (8). Powerwall could alone "easily" take up the
entire capacity of Tesla's $5 billion, 50GWh factory in Nevada,
For BC this can make quite a
difference. If more residents no longer require power from the net it will be easier
to obtain the electricity for the planned LNG and mining projects. One North
Vancouver commentator proposes to equip all household with a Tesla “powerwalls ‘
to be charged during off peak hours and running the house on battery power
during the one hour peak loads. He also visualizes local manufacturing of the
many batteries required (22) The one hour peak load on cold winter days exceeds
the average for the day by 13-17%.(post 21). Prior to the LNG and mining power forecasts
we could meet the peak demands for many years to come but now peak power is a
major justification to build site C. Instead of using powerwalls we could use
parked electric vehicles. This Vehicle to grid system is also promising (post
21) and BC Hydro does not have to pay for replacement batteries every 10 years.
With all
this good environmental news it is very important to make enough money available
to ensure that the disposal of old panels and batteries is properly regulated,
and monitored. Solar modules contain some of the same potentially dangerous
materials as electronics, including silicon tetrachloride, cadmium, selenium,
and sulfur hexafluoride, a potent greenhouse gas. (9)
D)
The
importance of carbon capture and storage (CCS)
When new coal fired power plants with CCS produce
electricity at 13.6 c/KWh while much cheaper renewable energy is available (3)
you could wonder why we pursue this technology. Even with a carbon tax the
development of renewable energy sources is not fast enough and CCS helps to
reduce emissions from power plants. It can also be used to capture carbon from
the atmosphere to counteract the overloading which has already occurred. CO2
stays in the atmosphere for at least 100 years and any removal helps. The CCS
technology is described in a long US government paper. (11). When using biomass
energy to do the pumping it reduces the Global Warming Potential (GWP) in
existing power plants from 4.44 to .25. With the new EPA rules for power plants
and a possible carbon tax (post 20) the US will need CCS badly to save its coal
industry. Due to CCS credits companies
that use CCS can compete much easier with companies that don’t. Norway has very
high carbon taxes and the savings are staggering: “It costs Statoil about $17 a tonne to squirt
the CO2 into the ground, meaning it saves about $58 a tonne (the difference
between the CCS cost and the carbon tax).” (23) Previously Norway had proposed to nearly
doubled its carbon tax on offshore oil companies and fishing fleets allowing it
to plough an extra £1bn into its funds for climate change mitigation, renewable
energy, food security in developing countries and conversion to low-carbon
energy sources. This shows how the taxing reduces GHG emissions, helps poor
countries and enriches oil companies which will keep exporting until high
global taxes slow down the demand for oil. In BC the savings would be $
13 per tonne (30-17) but that is still significant.
Canada and China spend a lot of money on the CCS technology.
Alberta’s power generation still includes 9 coal fired plants and 40 using
natural gas (10). China depends on coal for 70% of its primary energy and emits
more GHG than any other country. China started taxing carbon (post 20) but with
CCS China can easier reach the deal it made with the US (post 20) For Canada a
rapid development of CCS may get us closer to our Copenhagen commitment. As
documented in post 19 a recent audit shows that without drastic changes we will
only reach 7% reduction rather than the 17% agreed upon. When flipping through
the auditor’s report (12) or a Macleans article on the subject (13) it is clear
that a lot of work has to be done in a hurry. Canada has 2 of the 21 world’s operating CCS plants (14).
China has at least 6 large scale fully integrated projects(LSIP), driven by
state owned power companies with help from major international partners (15). A
recent article describes the GreenGen project, a billion-dollar facility built with
support of Peabody Energy, a Missouri firm that is the world’s biggest private
coal company. The author notes . “ Part
of a coming wave of such carbon-eating facilities, it may be China’s—and
possibly the planet’s—single most consequential effort to fight climate change”(16)
The importance
of CCS is also stressed by a professor in economics who has for years studied
the economic aspects of pricing resources based on how they affect the
environment. He is co-author of a recently published book “Rediscovering Sustainability”
. In a recent article he had this to say in about CCS . “ CCS is needed both for the removal of CO2 generated by processes other than
power generation and for bringing back the CO2 content of the atmosphere to a more
sustainable level” (17)
I learned that CCS from
the atmosphere is being used. Also knowing that China captured carbon and stored it in soft drinks I did a
further search and found some optimistic data including that a lot of the
captured carbon can be used in processes rather than having to be stored
underground:
“Capturing CO2
directly from the air allows emissions originating from any source to be
managed with standardized scalable industrial facilities. Our full-scale
design, for example, could absorb the emissions created by 300,000 typical
cars. Direct air capture can remove far more CO2 per acre of land footprint
than trees and plants. Air capture produces a stream of pure CO2 as its
principal output”. (18) “The idea of capturing carbon dioxide emissions and using it to fizz soda products like Coca-Cola was
discussed by an Australian government agency’s Energy White Paper as a possible means of using captured carbon emissions.”(19) Millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide are safely
transported each year around the world, for example in the soft drinks industry.”The
U.S.A. has several decades experience of transporting and injecting carbon dioxide for enhanced oil recovery.(24) It's estimated that 3,299 tonnes of carbon dioxide are released every day from people
drinking Coca Cola alone, according to an article in the Herald
Sun. So if the gas came from a recycled source, it could play a
small role in helping the environment.(20)
E)
Cimate
change
I don’t document climate change like I did carbon tax but from what I saw in the news I conclude that the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere trap heat and cause the polar ice to melt. That creates more open water which absorbs the heat rather than reflect it like the ice does. The temperature changes in the sea cause part of the climate change. Today, 25 May 2015 we hear of hundreds of people in India dying due to 48o C heat and dry wells. Close to home many people lost all they had due to flash floods in Cache Creek. At the same time tornadoes and huge floods caused great havoc and deaths in Texas and Oklahoma. Previously we saw how California crops were destroyed by drought and power reservoirs running out of water. These conditions will worsen unless you, young people promote a global carbon tax. It is the best tool to combat climate change. So please promote it as suggested in the summary
F)
Origin
and purpose of this blog
In 2012 I realized that Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline
proposal met a lot of opposition due to our environmental record, our carbon
tax policy and Enbridge’s catastrophic Kalamazoo spill. In January 2013 I read
the advertisement and table of contents of a new book “Rediscovering
Sustainability”, which, among many economic aspects deals with carbon pricing.
I sent an email to our Prime Minister Mr Harper to make him aware of this book
with the suggestion to soften his stand on carbon tax.
Since that first email I kept looking at websites and
discovered many aspects of our problems, hardly ever discussed in the media. On
the environmental side I found how badly we are rated by other countries and
why. I also saw that at that time Alberta lost 20-30 billion dollars per year
in revenue due to pipeline delays. I saw that the Kalamazoo spill was caused by
using instrumentation which can only detect large spills and misses some of
them due to misinterpretation. The Kalamazoo spill was caused by many known but
unattended cracks, some of them combining into a large rupture which was allowed
to spill for 17 hours due to misinterpretation of the instrument signals. I
learned how all these problems can be avoided. In 2 further emails to our PM
and 5 to Enbridge I showed with reference to websites how much bad news there
is around and suggested to make more positive news available to the public. The
PMO assured me that all points have been carefully considered, while Enbridge
thanked me for my interest and support.
After having collected so much information I figured it
may be very useful to others so I started this blog. I kept on adding new
discoveries but also repeated a lot in subsequent posts. This post 22 covers
the most important material of previous posts plus new data on solar panels,
Tesla batteries and the importance of carbon capture and storage.
G)
Comtents
of previous posts
Post 1 contains the points raised in the emails to the
Canadian Prime Minister and Enbridge, It shows how carbon pricing works, how it
is accepted by many countries and how well it works, It shows in detail how
several organizations are not aware or ignore how the collected tax is returned
to those who paid for it by publishing completely wrong figures on how the tax
affects households. The post shows how the Kalamazoo spill was caused and what
has to be changed to prevent such disasters. It covers some design aspects for
pipelines and at the very end is a list of unanswered question about pipelines
and marine transportation.
Post 2 shows that a number of technical questions related
to the Enbridge pipeline will also apply to the Kinder Morgan line
Post 3 gives a summary of all data collected prior to
October 2013
Post 4 discusses the safety record of oil tanker traffic
and refers to some regulations . It also notes that some questions brought up
at the enquiry have as yet to be answered.
Post 5 repeats the unanswered questions shown in post 1 ,
Enbridge has a copy of post 1 with a note that at the very end there is this
list of unanswered questions.
Post 6 explains that due to the BC carbon tax refunds, business
taxes are so low that US companies buy their US coal through Canadian subsidies
and ship through Canadian ports to avoid higher US taxes.
Post 7 documents how fast the GHG emissions are rising
and that some major oil companies support a carbon tax. It also shows that the
British Columbia tax system will be used as a model for Oregon and Washington
to join the Pacific Coast Collaborative,
signed in October 2013. This will bring carbon pricing to 4 states and
one province with a combined population of53 million people and a GDP of $2.8
trillion
Post 8 notes that support for the Enbridge pipeline
increased from 35% to 42% but that the Canadian Prime Minister does not help
the project by congratulating his Australian counterpart following repeal of
the carbon tax by a narrow margin.
Post 9 copies under the heading “Pipeline and Carbon tax
update “ a focus article I wrote for a local paper. This was suggested by a columnist
after I supplied specifications and laboratory test results of diluted bitumen .That
‘dilbit’ had become a controversial subject in one of their articles. From the comments the columnist made I gather it is too
controversial: “I've learned in
a hurry that pipeline companies are ready to charge will all guns at
the ready “ not surprising, since they have a lot to lose if they don't get
their permits.” The paper also wanted to know my background and "where you come from" on the
topic. Things like, whether you belong to the corporate side, the environmental
side, political, etc.”. It shows how at the end of 2013 the main media was
still hesitant to discuss the real problems about pipelines and required
oversight.
Post 10 gives
more details about carbon tax and shows the link to the BC government tables.
These tables show year by year how much tax was collected and how all of it was
refunded to individuals and businesses. At present there are 17 refund
categories.
Post 11 is a
copy of an update which I send from time to time to family and friends. This
one was in January 2014
Post 12 explains
why 3 major oil companies and the world’s third largest airline signed
communiqués demanding a carbon tax. Also shown is the importance and type of
business of 5 major multinationals who signed the communiqués along with more than 1000 business from over
60 countries. In contrast politicians still don’t know or ignore how a revenue
neutral carbon tax works resulting in at least one totally misleading statement
in the house. It is analysed together with the energy and cost savings by using
heat pump systems instead of natural gas
Post13 gives a
summary of all posts till May 2014
Post 14
highlights a few politicians who don’t even mention carbon tax and tell the
public how much our oil exports contribute to the global emission as if we are
the only country which can supply the increased demand
Post 15
reconfirms that despite increased rail shipping of oil, Alberta still loses $
15 billion per year in revenue. It is argued that lots of money will be well
spent to ensure that all the rules and regulation pertaining to tanker design,
operation, maintenance and navigation are followed. These rules and regulations
are summarised and explained by a chief engineer who during his 37 years at sea
has spent most of his time in BC waters, knows the particular inlets well, has
had many conversations with other mariners has been in rough weather himself
and concludes the tanker transport is safe provided all the rules and
monitoring of ship movements from a control tower are followed.
Post 16 shows
once more how many major companies demand a carbon tax. In addition there is an
analysis of the June 2014 US announcement that power plants have to cut
emissions to 30% below 2005 levels by 2030
Post 17
calculates that based on August 2014 prices and a global tax identical to the
BC tax the price of thermal coal would go up by 70% and crude oil by 9%.
Post18 documents
how due to pipeline protests the railways are replacing pipelines. There is
already sufficient equipment on order to supply the Gulf Coast refineries with as
much oil as the Keystone XL pipeline can carry. In BC the controversial
Enbridge and Kinder Morgan pipelines can be replaced by the much studied G7G
railway which would bring the oil to Alaska for shipment through the
under-utilized port of Valdez, which is 2 days closer to Asian destination.
First Nations prefer this over the pipelines because it eliminates additional
tanker traffic through BC waters.
Post 19 shows
how outdated Canada’s carbon tax policies are and how difficult it will be to
change course unless the public gets more involved in the details
Post 20 compares
the figures of the US-China deal with recent commitments in European countries
The US has a well defined carbon tax bill under review. It would achieve the
drastic EPA emission reductions while collecting lots of money including from countries without carbon tax by imposing
import duties (border tax adjustments).
Post 21 looks at
many details of BC Hydro’s operation and the Clean Energy Act, which requires BC
Hydro to buy all the renewable energy which independent power producers (IPP’s)
can supply. Since the system has to be self sufficient under the worst peak load
conditions there is a lot of excess capacity which can only be sold at a huge loss
until a global carbon tax has been established. Since BC is an ideal province to
develop windpower it is shown that by increasing it from 1.5% to 20% BC could send
45% of its electricity to Alberta. That province uses a lot of fossil fuel energy
for oil extraction and by replacing it with green energy the Alberta oil would be
more acceptable to the public
5 http://www.theresearchpedia.com/research-articles/latest-developments-in-solar-panel-technology
(150)
6 http://www.greenerideal.com/alternative-energy/0207-new-developments-in-solar-panel-technology/
(149)
13 http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/audit-canada-falling-further-behind-on-emissions-reductions/
(157)
No comments:
Post a Comment