pipelines and carbon tax: #30 Mr. Trump's $40 per tonne of CO2 carbon tax

On 7 February the US Republicans have, with great support of 3 secretaries of state, other Republican veterans and a former Walmart CEO proposed a $ 40 per tonne of CO2 carbon tax. While the details on the plan from the newly formed Carbon Leadership Coalition (CLC) are considerably less specific than a legislative proposal, this is a well-thought-out and ambitious plan that makes a good-faith effort at addressing many of the difficult choices on the path to enacting a carbon tax. WRI research shows that models tend to underestimate the emissions reductions from a carbon tax

There is strong support for carbon taxes among the American public and in the business community, including more than two-thirds of all Americans and more than half of Republicans. Nearly 40 countries and more than 20 sub-national jurisdictions are now pricing carbon.

I had thought that this would become great news but until recently I only heard and saw that environmental rules will be curtailed, scientists will lose jobs and the US Paris agreement may be rescinded. Not any more according to (42), issued Apr. 18, 2017 7:11 PM ET|By: Carl Surran, SA News Editor. It states in part:

A group within the Trump administration, including Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, is recruiting energy companies to support the Paris climate agreement to cut greenhouse gas emissions, Bloomberg reports

The endorsers are Cheniere Energy (NYSEMKT:LNG), Exxon Mobil (NYSE:XOM) Royal Dutch Shell (RDS.A, RDS.B), BP, Cloud Peak Energy (NYSE:CLD), Peabody Energy (NYSE:BTU)

Calpine (NYSE:CPN), FuelCell Energy (NASDAQ:FCEL), Johnson Controls (NYSE:JCI) and 50 other companies and trade groups, warn that backtracking on the Paris accords risks retaliatory trade policies against U.S. products and consumer boycotts of U.S. goods and services.

The most significant statement about carbon capture comes from the two coal companies : “ Coal producers Cloud Peak Energy (NYSE:CLD) and Peabody Energy (NYSE:BTU) also are lobbying in favor of the accord, hoping the US. will help with carbon capture and other high-efficiency, low-emissions technology to generate electricity from coal.” As shown in point B, Canada needs CCU badly to come even close to its Paris commitment. The forecasted generating capacity for 2040 (36) shows that we could gain about 10 GW by not having to shut down the coal fired power plants. The 17 GW of new Natural gas power plants will also need CCS in order to reduce the 236 Mtpa CO2 emissions. When the $ 40 carbon tax becomes law, there will be lots of money available to pay for CCU on a per tonne basis, encouraging rapid development of the CCU industry.

Following this development, I changed the title of post 30 from:

“# 30 Emission cuts via carbon capture and hydrogen energy.”

#30 Mr.Trump’s $ 40 per tonne of CO2 carbon tax

The announcements (25 - 27) mention global carbon tax several times. A global tax will allow paying for carbon capture on a per tonne basis, converting fossil fuel plants to green energy providers, speed up the development of clean electricity generation using hydrogen and fuel cells as documented from A) onwards. It will also speed up the stagnated development of green power. As shown in http://www.nsnews.com/opinion/letters/letter-wind-power-not-site-c-the-way-to-go-1.1940770 environmentalist rarely demanded a global tax and as a result the market is flooded with 4c/Kwh electricity from fossil fuel plants while we have a large, hard to export surplus. It will get worse when the 5100 Gwh/year at 8.6c/Kwh Site C power will be added. Yet, as calculated in post 29 we need 6 times the site C capacity to charge all Canadian passenger cars and three times that amount if it has to be done during an eight-hour night period. To meet Canada’s Paris commitment, we will have to juggle between carbon capture, hydrogen energy storage and rapid development of electric railways as documented below starting at point A)

Starting at 1) below here are few details of the Carbon Leadership Coalition (CLC)

Which politicians formed the CLC to propose the tax and what is the WRI research?

George Shultz, former secretary of state for Ronald Reagan and former secretary of the treasury for Richard Nixon, George HW Bush’s secretary of state James Baker, Trump’s secretary of state Rex Tillerson, Hank Paulson former U.S. treasury secretary of GW Bush and chief executive of Goldman Sachs.(25-27)

The World Resources Institute (WRI) is an independent, non-governmental global research organization which seeks to create equity and prosperity through sustainable natural resource management. It has a global staff of more than 450 scientists, economists, policy experts, business analysts, statistical analysts, mapmakers, and communicators developing and promoting policies with the intention of protecting the Earth and improving people’s lives.(28)

Rex Tillerson was CEO of Exxon Mobil, why does he propose a carbon tax?

US secretary of state Rex Tillerson is a noted supporter of a revenue neutral carbon tax, arguing at his confirmation hearing last month it would replace the “hodgepodge” of current measures. As documented in post 12, Exxon Mobil, along with Shell, BP and Statoil have large natural gas reserves and a carbon tax would allow all four to lessen or kill the competition of coal. It does not affect oil as much. As calculated in post 17, the BC tax would raise the price of coal by 70% while adding only $ 9 per barrel of crude. Exxon Mobil’s stand was at that time expressed by 2 leaders:

“The speeches of many prominent business leaders show why they want a global carbon tax, these include: Rex Tillerson, CEO, ExxonMobil, Jamie Dimon, Chairman and CEO JPMorgan Chase & Co. Donald E. Felsinger, Chairman and CEO, Sempra Energy, Jim Gordon, CEO, Energy Management, Inc, Bruce Williamson, CEO, Dynegy, Robert Olsen, Chairman, ExxonMobil International Ltd. (CT 65-67)”

Main points of the proposal

“All money collected ($200-$300 billion per year) will be refunded to citizens. This tax-and-dividend approach will be highly beneficial to poor and middle-class households, who will receive far more in dividends than they will spend on the tax.” (25)

“border carbon adjustment.” Exports to countries without comparable policies will receive rebates for carbon taxes paid, while imports from such countries would face fees (import duties) (25) This is similar to the border tax adjustment in the Sanders Boxer $ 20 bill. Some republicans liked it because of that extra income an its simplicity compared to EPA regulations.

When the Sanders Boxer bill was introduced in 2013 the Republicans had this to say:

“Markets are broken when market actors are allowed to pollute for free, passing off their costs onto other people. A carbon tax corrects that market failure and is endorsed by conservatives such as George P. Shultz, secretary of state under President Ronald Reagan, and Greg Mankiw, economic adviser to George W. Bush and Mitt Romney.

A revenue-neutral carbon tax has several advantages over EPA regulations that Republicans might find attractive.”

Why go as high as $40?

The figure is roughly in line with US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) calculations on the damage a tonne of CO2 can inflict on the planet. It’s much higher than carbon prices in the EU (just over $5) and China’s pilot carbon pricing schemes ($2-5) As noted before the Sanders Boxer bill is $ 20 and the BC carbon tax in US dollars is $26

How will it affect illegal immigrants?

Since citizens are mentioned and from comments I have seen on (27) It is clear that illegal immigrants don’t get any refund. Of the 11 million illegal people 8 million work. That is 5% of the total labor force. (29) While these illegal workers may drive less and live in more crowded housing, even at 50% they would contribute $ 5-$7.5 billion per year, which, along with import duties from other countries, results in even more money for the citizens.

How does the CLC proposal compare to other revenue neutral systems?

In BC it is, like Trump’s tax, 100% revenue neutral but in 2015/2016 the people received only 41.7%, including 13.4% to the poor and 19.2% to low income earners. 58.3% went to businesses including a 13.4% tax cut for corporations and 15.2% cut for small businesses. That makes BC a tax haven and US coal companies use it to avoid higher US taxes. Since Mr. Trump has promised lower corporate taxes he can afford to give all money to the citizens. It will create a buying spree of carbon saving electric products and help the economy.

The Sanders Boxer bill, yet to be passed is 75% revenue neutral returning 60% of revenue directly to households monthly, allot 25% to deficit reduction and dedicate the remaining 15% to green energy.

What is meant by the business community showing strong support for a revenue neutral carbon tax?

I saw a number of descriptions of that community but nothing specific on carbon tax. I saw earlier why the 4 oil companies and Cathay Pacific demanded the tax. (post 12). I also checked the size and importance of multinationals in the food, computer, petrochemical insurance and construction industries when I read:

“And, in a clear signal that global business is becoming frustrated by the lack of political action in the UN climate talks, support for a global carbon price came on Monday from 100 multinationals including Shell, Unilever, Cathay Pacific, EDF Energy, Braskem, Statoil, Swiss Re, Ricoh and Skanska.

The companies have called on governments to introduce a price to "drive the investment" needed to deliver substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. "A price on CO2 can open the door to increased ambition. Putting a clear, transparent and unambiguous price on carbon must be a core policy objective," said the companies who signed up to a declaration by the Carbon Price Communiqué, an initiative co-ordinated by the Prince of Wales's corporate leaders group on climate change.”

At the Doha conference BP was the third oil company which signed the above Carbon Price Communiqué while at about the same time Exxon Mobil reconfirmed their earlier support for a carbon tax over cap and trade

How Trump’s carbon tax will benefit Canada

Going towards a global tax, as suggested, will allow counties to tax their fossil fuel exports without unfair competition. The money collected could go to an international fund to fight climate change. Captured carbon could be paid for per tonne of CO2 and utilization of the captured CO2 can also get a funding boost. As shown in E) below Canada’s Inventys, Carbon Engineering and CO2 Solutions are already underway with capture. Halifax based Carbon Sense Solutions utilizes captured CO2 in it’s CarbonCure cement projects. Just recently I found out that a Canadian firm Hydrogenics Corp. provided a plant to E.ON as a turnkey project, including supply, installation, connection, and commissioning of the hydrogen production facility, consisting of gas compression, master controls, as well as a five-year service and maintenance agreement. E.ON and partner Swissgas inaugurated this new 2-MW power-to-gas plant in Falkenhagen, Germany. Hydrogenics is working on a second one for Hamburg. As explained in G) and H) below these plants in combination with captured CO2 may result in at least 80 new 20MW windfuel plants because the US has already plenty of captured CO2 and expects rapid development of CO2 capture.

Trump’s carbon tax will indeed help the hydrogen and fuel cell industry in which Canada has a lot to offer. Hydrogenics , headquartered in Mississauga, Canada has manufacturing facilities located in Germany and Belgium. They have other corporate and sales offices, and hydrogen installations, operating in several countries around the world. I also saw that Burnaby based Ballard signed a contract with Volkswagen and saw its stock jump 57%. VW will pay $50 million for the automotive-related portion of fuel cell intellectual property assets Ballard previously acquired from United Technologies Corp. and another $30 million to extend an engineering services contract for next-generation fuel cell stack. Ballard retains the rights to this technology for buses and non-automotive uses. (30) That includes a Chinese deal to equip 10 000 trucks and buses with their fuel cells (33)

These other uses include the trains for Alstom, see K). Alstom awarded Canadian Hydrogenics a large contract. “The agreement, valued at over €50 million, includes the supply of at least 200 engine systems along with service and maintenance as necessary over a 10 year period. Hydrogenics was selected by Alstom following a rigorous technical review process. The fuel cell systems, based on the Company’s Heavy-Duty HD series fuel cells, will be developed to meet European train compliance regulations.”(31) Hydrogenics also won a $ 40 million contract from China for hydrogen powered buses.(32)

Canada’s Paris commitment calls for 31% emission reduction in 14 years

Canada needs this carbon capture and utilization (CCU) badly to help reducing our emissions. We have to cut 241 mega tonnes per annum (Mtpa) in 2030. It is at present 720 and expected to rise to 765 in 2030. Our Paris commitment is 524 in 2030 . As shown in post 29, renewable energy will not be enough and can’t provide the required flexibility to meet the demand. The flowsheet shows that, apart from fuels, plastics, fertilisers and cement many other products can be made from captured CO2. Rapid development of hydrogen by electrolysis of water has led to pollution free trains, trucks, heat for buildings and power generation. The production of carbon neutral biofuels using hydrogen and captured CO2 also needs quick development. Without these improvements we keep adding to the 410 parts per million (ppm) of CO2 already in the atmosphere. After accounting for volcanic action and forest fires it means that since the start of the industrial revolution humans caused the CO2 level to rise 39% higher than it ever was during 400,000 years covering 3 previous ice ages with lows of 180 ppm and highs to 290 ppm.

Potential reductions of the 241 Mtpa in 14 years’ time.

Post 29 shows one scenario that by making 50% of all cars electric, transporting more freight on trains instead of trucks, capturing 50% of CO2, electrify 50% of railroads, using hydrogen power for buildings and canceling the 30 Mtpa oil sands expansion we can reach the 214 reduction. The electricity requirements will however be more than envisaged for 2040

Three Canadian power plants capture carbon using an expensive amine process. Lower costs processes are in operation or pilot plant stage. The market price for captured carbon also exceeds the $35 per tonne which is paid for EOR to the present Canadian plants CCU fossil fuel power plants will prevent shutting down modern costly facilities. Green power plants based on hydrogen and fuel cells can be built rapidly within the 14 years’ time frame. Like the 60 MW units in the US and Korea they can be located anywhere, without noise and transmission losses.

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) too expensive

Canada has 2 of 21 operating CCS plants. Except for one direct iron reduction plant and one blast furnace for iron, all CCS plants are for fossil fuel. China has for years counted on CCS to meet their emission commitment for coal plants and have seven plants in operation. China built their new GreenGen facility. Charles C. Mann,an American journalist and author, specializing in scientific topics, toured it and describes it as "part of a coming wave of carbon-eating facilities, it may be China's-and possibly the planet's-single most consequential effort to fight climate change".

In particular in the US a lot of the CCS is used for fracking and enhanced oil recovery (EOR). A piping network carrying compressed CO2 has been developed. When the demand for EOR dwindles the CO2 piping network will become available for production of biofuels.

The current global demand for CO₂ is estimated at 80Mtpa. Of this 80Mtpa, at least 50Mtpa is utilized for EOR, almost exclusively in North America. The remaining 30Mtpa represents the global demand of all other uses, predominantly the mature industries of beverage carbonation and food industry uses. (16)

The food and beverage industry produces its CO2 rather than relying on the new CCU technology. Depending on quality and cost this may change. Union Engineering built and maintains over 1000 CO2 plants in 110 countries. They are involved in CCU by recycling the emissions from breweries and distilleries. (8)

The Global CCS Institute (34) shows that CCS and CCSU are actually cheaper than wind and solar. They quote US$23-92 per tonne of CO₂and an avoided cost of US$90-176/tonne for offshore wind, US$139-201/tonne for solar thermal, and even more for solar PV. They also claim that their findings are in line with International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that identify that without CCS, abatement costs in the electricity sector could be higher by more than 70 per cent. Another source (35) shows that the International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that CCUS can achieve 14 percent of the global greenhouse gas emissions reductions needed by 2050. This is seldom mentioned but it is logical that quite some coal has to be burned to generate electricity so by removing the CO2, the capture cost reflects how much electricity was generated by the coal. By adding the mining and transport energy for the coal, an even clearer picture will show how many Kwh one tonne of CO2 represents.

This strengthens my argument that Canada should quickly bring its CCU pilot plants to full production and use a global carbon tax to pay for capture on a per tonne basis. That will create a thriving CCU industry around the world. Canada has to remove 241mega tonnes of CO2 per annum in 14 years. The Canadian prediction till 2040 (36) shows with a chart in GW that up till 2040 the government still counts on lots of natural gas for extra power generation. Also included is hydro expansion, which as shown in post 21 is more expensive than wind and no longer acceptable due to environmental and cultural damage. Only 1.3 GW is devoted to CCS.

Carbon capture and utilization (CCU) progress

CCU is relatively new. New discoveries and production methods proceed at a rapid pace. In the US Six projects continued into Phase II that aim to find ways of converting captured carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from industrial sources into useful products such as fuel, plastics, cement, and fertilizers.(ref 46 in post 26 ). Using molten carbonate fuel cells is also in phase II development. It concentrates and purifies the CO2 while generating electricity. Existing approaches to capturing carbon dioxide would nearly double the cost of electricity from a coal-fired power plant. And although using fuel cells instead would still increase the cost of electricity, that increase—based on early tests and calculations—might be one-third or less, says Shailesh Vora, a program manager at the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory Production of recycled jet fuel can also be achieved by using algae to capture the CO2 in stacks.

An up to date map of the world in three categories, research, testing facilities and pilot/commercial projects shows that Central Europe is the most advanced (13).

Canada’s CCU expertise, including cement

In Canada Inventys’ patented capture equipment is expected to bring the cost down from $ 45 per tonne to $15 per tonne.(ref 51 in post 26) The process is based on absorption by re-usable charcoal compounds followed by steam processing. It will soon be used in a Husky Oil plant On a small scale Carbon Engineering uses molten carbonate fuel cells to extract CO2 from the air. The captured CO2 can be used to make fuels. They will soon produce synthetic liquid hydrocarbons at an estimated cost of $1 to $1.50 per litre.(ref 21in post 26) Recently a new US stable, re-usable catalyst has been developed, which will speed up the process. It also allows much faster production of chemicals to make plastics (ref 53 in post 26). . A Quebec firm, CO2 Solutions has a demonstration plant using enzymes (47) . CO₂ Solutions’ technology is built around the use of the carbonic anhydrase enzyme that efficiently manages CO₂ during respiration in humans and all other living organisms. Employing a saltwater solvent similar to seawater in combination with the enzyme, the result is what the company calls an “industrial lung” for carbon capture with low operating and capital costs using known equipment infrastructure 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. Carbon dioxide is now more than just a greenhouse gas; it is a valuable material to help make better concrete. Quite a few structures have been completed and volumes of captured CO2 are shown for each. “

This technology has attracted national and international attention and the company’s future is bright indeed.” (ref 64,65 and 66 in post 26)

The technology is currently installed in nearly 50 concrete plants across North America

Carbon neutral jet fuel production at 50 million gallons per year

In February 2010, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency announced that the U.S. military was about to begin large-scale oil production from algal ponds into jet fuel. After extraction at a cost of $2 per gallon, the oil will be refined at less than $3 a gallon. A larger-scale refining operation, producing 50 million gallons a year, is expected to go into production in 2013 and may lower the cost (15)

Jet fuel can also be produced at similar costs using sun energy

Water and carbon dioxide (CO2) can be converted into ‘solar thermochemical fuel’ using energy from the sun and very high temperatures. A new study has analysed the production of this fuel and found that, under favourable future conditions, costs could be as little as €1.28 per litre, with close to zero life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Although suitable as a substitute for any hydrocarbon fuel, it could be particularly useful as a much needed alternative for energy-dense jet fuel (1)

Producing jet fuel from biomass means that the fuel is recycled instead of being adding it to the atmosphere. Without that feature we would have to spend far more money to capture the emissions from the air to meet our emission commitments.

Zero emission gas in distribution lines

For the first time on an industrial scale, hydrogen produced using wind power is being injected into the natural gas grid in Germany. It’s a development that could enhance the value of wind power by making it useful no matter when it is produced (17) The amount of hydrogen allowed in gas lines is relatively small. When using fuel cells, methane can be produced with hydrogen and captured CO2. It is a carbon neutral methane, sometimes known as “renewable methane” or synthetic methane. This synthetic methane could go directly into the natural gas pipeline without the limitations of hydrogen.

US Carbon neutral biomass production was expected to reach 12-24 billion gallons in 2019

At present, 95 percent of America's hydrogen is produced from natural gas but that will change rapidly due to legislation. In the US hydrogen, produced by wind power will play a large role in the development of biofuels using the existing CO2 piping network. From (4) I quote:

“Bio-fuel initiatives, both private and public are expected to allow the ethanol industry to continue to grow. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 calls for biofuel production targets to increase between 1 and 2 billion gallons/year for the next 12 years, and 3 billion gallons/year thereafter. If this is upheld, this would equate to a supply of between 4 and 8 million additional tons of clean ($20-$25/ton) CO2/year until 2020, and 12 million additional tons/year of clean CO₂ thenceforth. This CO₂ alone is sufficient for 80-240 new 20 MW WindFuels plants, each producing 2.5 million gallons of gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, and other chemicals per year. There are also tens of millions of tons of CO₂ from fertilizer (ammonia) production, cement production, oil refining, GTL/CTL, hydrocracking, metal smelting, and plastic/chemical production facilities that have yet to be tapped. WindFuels plants will generate a demand for this CO₂, bringing further investment opportunities for developing the pipelines.”

In the past the production of fuels from hydrogen was very inefficient but this has changed. From part of (14) I quote:

“The problem has been that prior proposals for doing this conversion have had efficiencies of only 25% to 35%. – except for six to 10 hours in the middle of the night. The combination of the eight major technical advances we have made will now permit this conversion to be done at much lower cost at up to 60% efficiency. That’s high enough efficiency for carbon-neutral fuels made from waste CO₂ to easily compete with petroleum, especially when the input energy is from off-peak wind. Our breakthroughs permit production of carbon-neutral jet fuel, diesel, ethanol, gasoline, and many chemicals from waste CO₂ and off-peak (low cost) grid energy that will be competitive in the open market.”.

25 of 100 major US businesses use green electric power and heat. (19)

Fuel cells generate electricity through a chemical reaction of hydrogen (or a hydrogen-rich fuel), not combustion. This chemical process provides inherently more efficient and cleaner electricity than conventional power generation. When pure hydrogen is used as the fuel source for a fuel cell, the only by-products from operating the fuel cell are electricity, waste heat, and water. Surplus wind power is a convenient way to produce the hydrogen. The largest users were Verizon at 10.4 MW and, Apple at 10 MW capacity.

Fuel cells also help warehouses reduce emissions by powering material handling fleets.

BMW, with its fleet of 350 fuel cell-powered forklifts, the largest fleet at a single site in the world, is lowering the CO2 emissions at its South Carolina manufacturing facility by 1,200 tons a year. As of December 2015, the company reported that the fleet had reached 1 million hydrogen fuelings.

Green power for larger 40-60 MW hydrogen fuel cell plants (20)

Several large-scale fuel-cell power plants have been built in Connecticut, Delaware and California.

Just last month, state officials in Connecticut approved plans to build what will be the largest fuel cell power plant in the world. Equipped with 21 fuel cells, the 63.3-MW Beacon Falls fuel cell power plant will surpass the 59.9-MW fuel cell plant in South Korea. The Beacon Falls Project will be capable of generating enough electricity to power 60,000 Connecticut homes and is expected to be completed in 2019.

The power plant and substation will be built on about eight acres. A solar plant would require about 10 times more land to achieve the same amount of output.

In addition, fuel cells, which use hydrogen and oxygen to generate electricity, have no moving parts, making them inherently quiet and ideal for use in urban settings where the power is actually consumed. This limits the need for transmission and distribution lines, thus reducing the risk of power outages caused by ice storms and heavy winds

Altstom in France expects orders for 40-70 hydrogen propelled trains by 2017 (21)

The expected initial firm order would cover units for service in Nordrhein-Westfalen. Alstom has already signed letters of intent with four German Länder covering a total of 60 trainsets, and anticipates firm orders for between 40 and 70 units by the end of 2017.

Nikola zero emission hydrogen powered freight truck very promising (22)

On Thursday in Salt Lake City, the Nikola Motor Company unveiled the Nikola One, the world’s first hydrogen fuel-cell electric freight truck. The full-scale, zero-emission semi will offer a range between 800 and 1200 miles, and produce 1,000 horsepower, about twice that of an average diesel truck. The company also claims it will operate at half the cost of a comparable diesel truck.

The company will begin delivering vehicles in 2020, partnering with Fitzgerald to build the first 5,000. It will start work on its own production facility next year, and says that after that it will be able to build 50,000 trucks a year.

Finally hydrogen vehicles emerged beyond the forklifts for warehouses where the emissions are critical I just read that Ballard saw its stock rising by 57% after signing an $80 million deal with Volkswagen. Ballard retains the rights to its technology for buses and non-automotive uses. After I wrote post 30 I found out that Broad-Ocean Motor Co., Ltd. has entered into a strategic collaboration with Ballard which includes a $28.3 million equity investment in Ballard. It is a Chinese deal. Broad-Ocean signed an agreement with Guangdong Nation Synergy Hydrogen Power Technology Co. Ltd. (“Synergy”) relating to the purchase of 10,000 fuel cell vehicles, including buses and delivery trucks, all of which are expected to have Ballard’s leading PEM fuel cell technology inside.(33)

PS 2

On March 31^st 2017 The leading Nordic fuel cell company PowerCell Sweden AB (publ) has received a large order from Chinese Wuhan Tiger Fuel Cell Vehicle Co. LTD. PowerCell will provide Wuhan Tiger with fuel cell stacks and systems amounting to more than MSEK 200 until 2019. In a first stage, PowerCell will deliver two PowerCell MS-20 systems and 28 PowerCell S2 (35kW) in the second half of 2017.(38)

PowerCell and Volvo Cars have performed a prestudy on a 20 kW Range Extender for electrical cars. In phase two, a Volvo XC90 is now being planned with a fuel cell.

A Range Extender offers all of the advantages of a pure electric car combined with the range of a conventional car if the hydrogen tank is adequately dimensioned. Once the car’s battery has been discharged to a predetermined level, the fuel cell automatically kicks in. The built-in fuel cell converts the H2 to electric energy which is supplied to the battery so that the driver can continue his or her journey. The car is powered by the electric motor and the average power output is provided by the fuel cell to keep the battery charged. The battery contributes maximum power, such as when overtaking. For the driver, this means that the car always achieves the same performance. (39)

PS 3

Early in April 2017 I saw that the Toyota Mirai is another hydrogen powered car. An article (40) shows pictures and a description that the fill up is not as complicated as I expected. It can be done by the driver. There are 5000 psi pumps and 10000 psi pumps. At 5000psi the tank will be only half full. At 10 000 psi the tank holds 5kg of hydrogen, which costs $16.63 per kg. It costs 33c/mile compared to 4c/mile for a similar size gas engine. A case could be made that some of the proceeds of a global carbon tax should be used to subsidize 0 emission hydrogen. It can be produced by using green electric power to split water. All other hydrogen processes use fossil fuels (41). Some carbon capture is already funded via a carbon tax. 0 emission hydrogen replaces carbon emissions and could qualify for an equivalent refund.

PS 4

When I prepared a picture presentation with text for my Facebook timeline I saw in picture # 12 that there are more fuel cell trucks than the Nicola. I read more in their literature and understand why their hydrogen is cheaper than Toyota’s. Nikola says it will solve that problem through vertical integration, producing and distributing its own hydrogen. The company will deploy 364 hydrogen stations across the U.S. and Canada, which CEO and founder Trevor Milton told Cnet will be completed within ten years.

Picture #13 shows that there are a number of hydrogen cars while Volkswagen and Volvo are not even mentioned in a book (43), which shows showroom models complete with interior features and lots of text for Toyota, Honda, Lexis, Audi, BMW, Ford, Mercedes-Benz, Raza, Pininfarina, and GM.

With so many companies spending lots of money to reduce emissions it is clear that, even without a global carbon tax the climate change problems are starting to sink in.

Studies and estimates for modern Canadian railroads.

Prior to the Alstom deal it seemed logical to construct rather straight electric railways with modest inclines. To limit transmission losses a series of windfarms in combination with hydrogen fuel cell power generation stations could be used to power the trains. Until all sections are completed the popular versatile Bombardier TRAKK hybrid locomotives could be used. TRAXX locomotives operate with alternating current AC, direct current DC or diesel propulsion on all standard gauge railways and in cross-border services on all important rail transportation corridors. (23)

The 2400 Km railway for oil transport from Alberta to Alaska could be powered that way. As detailed in K) of post 26 that railway has been subject to a $ 6 million US study, was evaluated by the Canadian G7G company and a $ 1.8 million study by the Alberta government, resulting in the Van Horne report. The report is based on diesel power requiring transport and transfer of diesel oil to mid and end stations. It has been declared profitable for transporting the equivalent of 1.5 barrels per day (bpd) of diluted bitumen (dilbit) using 8 trains per day. The capital cost includes the rolling stock of 208 locomotives, and 6072 tank cars

An extensive 1970 study showed the advantage of such a railway through the Mid Canada Corridor. As shown in points 11, 12 and 13 in post 28, it was a great vision to conveniently export our mineral and forest products. Fast passenger service was also anticipated. At the moment it is much more important because we can safely export Alberta oil with it. A presentation was made to the Senate and it is stressed that there are many isolated First Nation communities in the corridor. They will have better access to services and better job opportunities when that corridor becomes a reality.

China intends to build a 340 km railway to the Ring of Fire

As documented in post 27 China is eager to finance railways and make a profit. As detailed in the article in the South China Morning Post they have realized that they have to consider the local requirements. Not doing so caused the problems in South America. Mexico, Indonesia, Thailand and India. The Las Vegas to Los Angeles line was already well ahead when one Chinese company backed out but alternative financing is expected.

Just recently Chinese engineers did an air survey and further studies for a $ 2billion railway from Southern Ontario to mineral deposits in the Mid Canada Corridor. There are many deposits in the corridor but these, called the Ring of Fire are important enough to be accessed by themselves.

The engineers toured the Ring of Fire region by helicopter last week and concluded there are no major construction challenges. The 340 kilometres long railway would connect the Ring of Fire to an existing CN Rail line near Nakina, Ontario.

It’s a very good project,” Mr. Zhu, who is vice-president of China Railway First Design Survey Institute, a subsidiary of state-owned China Railway Construction Corporation, said.

The engineers expect to complete a detailed feasibility study on the rail project within four months that would then be presented to Chinese financial institutions.

(24)

Global carbon tax can help finance CCU and prevent green energy slump

While F) to L) make great progress with corporate funding, CCU will need carbon tax support to develop as quickly as possible around the world. A uniform global tax will allow applying it to all fossil fuel exports without unfair competition. The extra money can via an international fund be used to help countries cope with climate change and pay for CCU on a per tonne basis. That is much better than having individual totally different contributions. Norway pays $ 75 per tonne of CO2. The US bill tabled by Senator Whitehouse pays $ 35 per ton of carbon, which amounts to only $ 9.50 per tonne of CO2

As document in post 21 and summarized in http://www.nsnews.com/opinion/letters/letter-wind-power-not-site-c-the-way-to-go-1.1940770 BC has a huge surplus of 8.5 c/ Kwh green energy which can only be exported at 4c/Kwh. When site C comes on line at 8.6 c Kwh we will lose even more money. Ontario and Labrador have similar problems and a global carbon tax will kill that 4c/Kwh competition from fossil fuel power plants

Carbon tax problems

Like several other countries Canada is still struggling with a carbon tax because it is seen as a tax grab rather than a tax shift. As documented in points F), G) and H) of post 26, powerful organizations in the US and Canada published completely wrong figures on how the tax affects people and businesses by leaving out all the refunds. Politicians tend to go along with such special interest groups. The public is still not fully aware how well the BC system works:

In BC all money collected has to be refunded and it has dropped consumption of petroleum products by 17%. 32.6% of all money collected goes to those who pay no income tax and the two lowest income tax brackets. Those people get more money back than they paid and can get even more cash in their hands by using less fossil fuel. 58.3% goes to businesses resulting in a 17% corporate tax cut and a 44% tax cut for small businesses. US coal companies use us as a tax haven to avoid higher US taxes.

The frightening environmental situation

Based on greenhouse gas emission reductions agreed in Copenhagen, the globe will warm between 3.1 and 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100. (post 26 ref 10 ). When the Paris commitments to 2030 are achieved, 2.7-3.7 degrees is expected. (post 26 ref 54) To reach 2 degrees or less we have to make further reduction leading to 0 emissions 84 years from now. In June 2015 Mr. Harper committed us to that 0 emission by signing the G7 agreement. It is clear that previous computer predictions were based on insufficient input. A whole description on what was missing shows among many items that Greenland and Antarctic ice melt is already 100 years ahead of the 3 earliest predictions (12) Dr. Hansen who headed a team of 17 scientists from many disciplines explains why, even at 2^o C, sea levels could rise more than the previous estimate of .8 to 1 meter at the end of the century. (post 26 ref 5). In that article he explains that previous computer models exclude the fact that heavy rains over the sea and the currents undermine icefields. He also shows that one ice ago the sea started to rise 9 meters under similar conditions we have now. Another article shows that when summer snow over icefields is replaced by heavy rains, lakes can be formed, filling crevasses and severing the bond between ice and bedrock, allowing huge blocks slipping into the sea. (5) In the past there have been megafloods due to broken ice dams of such lakes. Chronological tideline maps in Wikipedia show how the people in Doggerland had to flee to higher ground when the sea rose 1.5 meters in less than 2 years (post 26 ref 7) While those will not re-occur, the rise will not be a steady one and nobody can predict what it will be 50 or even 30 years from now if we don’t drastically cut our emissions. We should not forget that there is still lots of ice around. If the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) were to melt, this would add around 6 metres to sea levels. If the East Antarctic Ice Sheet (EAIS) were to melt as well, seas would rise by around 70 metres. (7)PS. That will hopefully limit global warming to 2 degrees and avoid excessive methane emission due to melting permafrost. While methane does not last as long as CO2 it is an 80 times more potent greenhouse gas.

A study was undertaken to find out how much of the world’s present known reserves have to be left in the ground to reach the required reductions. (post 26 ref 52) As a result “A call to divest from fossil fuels from World Bank president Jim Yong Kim and reports from HSBC, Citibank and Standard & Poor, some of the world’s major financiers, on the financial risk of unburnable fossil fuels. Financial experts, including the Bank of England and Goldman Sachs, have begun taking seriously the risk that expensive fossil fuel projects will be rendered worthless by future climate action.” This could make pipelines frozen assets so as explained in ) below we will be better off exporting the remaining oil by rail. Not as volatile oil but as raw bitumen (neatbit), which will not flow nor ignite during a derailment.

Climate change deniers

Some organizations show sophisticated documents with reference to scientists as proof that CO2 is irrelevant because 95% of the greenhouse gases is water vapour. They don’t accept that the CO2 causes the water vapour and that 95% is the upper limit. Other parties claim with sophisticated documents and graphs that the conditions on the sun determine our climate and that we are cooling instead of warming.

Some of my comments on the government website letstalkclimateaction. ca led to long debates about that water vapour and the notion that temperatures are controlled by conditions on the sun. You can see all comments by going to that website and type in my name in the search bar. For a summary of those debates see point 9 in post 27

Previously I read that larger areas are already affected by melting permafrost and that even during the winter the vegetation keeps on rotting at the bottom while the surface is covered in ice. That is bound to increase the greenhouse gas emissions. I checked Wikipedia (37) and saw many more references related to the methane emissions confirming that further global warming will be disastrous.

PS 5 (2 to 4 give further details of hydrogen propulsion)

Just recently 2 further accounts of dramatic melting of ice were published. A 1 June article shows that a week ago a large ice shelve is about to slip into the sea: In a dramatic development, the giant rift in the Larsen C ice shelf has grown an additional 11 miles (17 km) since last week, and the leading tip of the crack is now exceptionally close to the ocean. There’s now very little to prevent a complete collapse—an event that will produce one of the largest icebergs in recorded history. When it calves, the Larsen C Ice Shelf will lose more than 10 percent of its total surface area. The resulting iceberg will feature an area around 2,300 square miles (6,000 square kilometers), and measure 1,150 feet (350 meters) thick.(44)

Another article (46) gives an idea how much water there is underneath the Greenland Ice sheet: On its surface, the Greenland ice sheet is a vast expanse of seemingly immovable ice. But beneath the monotonous stretch of white, scientists have discovered evidence of waves rippling through one of its outlet glaciers and roiling its innards.

The waves, observed during the two most intense melt seasons on record, sent an unprecedented cascade of ice and water rushing into the sea and warping the very bedrock upon which the ice sits. As temperatures continue to rise, scientists fear that massive waves of ice could expedite Greenland’s melt even further, pushing sea levels higher

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/fuel_sunlight_co2_water_alternative_jet_fuel_469na1_en.pdf

http://www.academia.edu/25599101/Appeal_to_Hydrogen_Energy_Centers_in_Balkan_and_Danube_Region_countries

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2014/07/hydrogen-energy-storage-a-new-solution-to-the-renewable-energy-intermittency-problem.html

http://dotyenergy.com/Economics/Econ_Physical_CO2_Market.htm