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/
No comments:
Post a Comment