pipelines and carbon tax

Wednesday, 5 October 2016

# 27 Climate action by China, USA and Canada

Climate action by China, USA and Canada

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.

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

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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

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

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.

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

Tags: Clean energy Electricity Energy efficiency Export opportunities Transportation

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/

Friday, 11 March 2016

#26 Climate change and oil export

Update August 2016

The MIT estimates that under current commitments, the globe will warm between 3.1 and 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100. (10 ). Others show 2.7-3.7 degrees (54) Dr. Hansen and a team of scientists explain why, even at 2^o C, sea levels could rise more than the previous estimate of .8 to 1 meter by the end of the century. (9). 195 countries agreed in Paris to try to keep it at 1.5^oC. This will require in about 25 years’ time a 25%-52% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, 40% -70% in 2050 and 0 emissions by the end of the century. ( second graph on post 26) In June 2015 the G7 nations already agreed to the 0 emission in 2100. At present power generation causes 21% of the emission When it all changes to green power it can be used to make all on- land transport (9%) and energy for buildings (10%) green electric while omitting the 11% for fossil fuel extraction and processing. That adds up to a reduction of 51%, which meets the 2050 requirement. (38) We still have to deal with industrial emissions which are 16.8% of the total. That requires carbon capture and storage (CCS) from stacks. Steel alone amounts to 6% of global emission and steel plants are already set to capture 1.5 million tons per year.( 27 ) Agricultural, marine and airplane emissions, which amount to 12.5+3+5 = 20.5% (38, 40, 41) require CCS from the air. Since during the next 40 years we still have to rely on fossil fuel, it seems logical to increase CCS capacity right away. So far most captured carbon dioxide (CO₂) has been pumped deep underground where the pressure keeps it liquid. In many cases it is at the same time used to enhance oil recovery (EOR). Now there are many promising solutions to use the captured CO₂ to make fuel, plastics, fertilisers and cement, which means that we could recycle the CO₂ instead of forever adding to what is already there.(46)

Capture from smokestacks has already been well developed and several companies have shown that capture directly from the air can be done. Carbon Engineering has an air extraction plant in Squamish BC and will soon add a pilot plant to convert the CO₂ to synthetic liquid hydrocarbons at an estimated cost of $1-1.50 per liter. (21) In the US, the government spent a lot of money for 12 pilot plants to convert captured CO₂. Six proceeded to phase 2 to show how captured CO₂ can be used to produce fuel, plastics, cement, and fertilizers. (46) Fuel obtained from the air will allow us to reduce the 41% CO₂ which we have added to the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution. It is still increasing at record level of 2ppm/year. (first graph on post 6 and extension to 400 ppm (55)

Burning of biomass and capturing its emissions is another route to reduce the CO₂ in the atmosphere. It is called biomass energy with CO₂ capture and storage (BECS). The burning is carbon neutral because when we let it rot away it emits the same amount of greenhouse gases as when we burn it. In pulp and paper mills wood waste is burned to generate process steam and electricity. All their CO₂ emissions could be captured and converted to fuel. Another way to obtain BECS is via pyrolysis, a process that allows wood to be converted to bio oil, bio gas and charcoal.(44)

To encourage the quick development of carbon capture and conversion of the CO₂ to fuel or other products we can use the same incentive used to develop green energy, a carbon tax. The history of carbon pricing has not been very successful but if the whole world would accept a revenue neutral system, like we have in BC, it could be applied to exported carbon as well without requiring complex border tax adjustments. The proceeds could, via an international fund be used to help poor countries adapt to climate change and pay companies a flat rate for every tonne of CO₂ which they capture.

Some cap and trade systems inform people that they will “share in dividends from the sale of auctioned pollution allowances”, but how much will that be? In BC all money collected has to be returned to people and businesses via lowered taxes and special credits. Those who spend below average on fossil fuel get more money back than they paid. That benefits low income earners who drive less and live in smaller or more crowded houses. They receive at the moment 37% of all tax collected. I hope that individuals and environmental groups will write their politicians to demand a global carbon tax. Over 1000 companies who benefit from it have done so by signing communiqués but a majority in the fossil fuel industry are bound to lose and put pressure on governments to avoid pricing of carbon.

The above observations are detailed below with hyperlinks to 77 source documents. Included is a detailed description on required strict regulations and improved oversight to make our oil transport safer.

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and acidification of the sea

Since July 2013 there have been websites showing a NASA graph of the carbon dioxide (CO₂) in the atmosphere. It is shown on post 26. During a period covering 4 ice ages It went up and down between 180 and 295 parts per million(ppm). After the industrial revolution it started shooting up from 280 to 395 ppm. Only 2% can be attributed to forest fires and volcanic activities (3,4). It has kept on rising. The latest observation was 404.8 ppm but that may be an exception. It is clear that at the moment, while all efforts are made to develop green energy, it rises at 2ppm/year and is now at least 400 ppm (55). Compared to the pre-industrial 280 level that is a 43% increase, 41% caused by humans. Unfortunately, the main media seldom covers these problems. In Kamloops a politician told the CBC during the election campaign that he believed humans caused only 1.5% of the emissions. His opponents countered with environmental statements (8) but apparently were not aware that humans caused a 41% rise instead of 1.5%

Acidification of the sea is another problem of these high human emissions. An estimated 30–40% of the carbon dioxide from human activity released into the atmosphere dissolves into oceans, rivers and lakes. As a result, coral and shellfish are being endangered (42) Most growers can only farm oysters if they can buy oyster larvae, also called oyster seed, from hatcheries. But a few years ago, the larvae suddenly began dying by the billions. The culprit? The seawater pumped into the hatcheries is so corrosive that it eats away the young oyster shells before they can form. (43)

Heat, storms, rain and rising sea levels

Mr. Gore tells us that 93% of all the heat trapped by greenhouse gases goes into the sea leading to destructive ocean-based storms and creates 4% more evaporation, resulting in heavy rains called “flying rivers”, leading to massive flooding (6). Dr. Hansen shows in the above figure 1 how heavy rains into the ocean lead to currents which cause faster melts in Greenland and Antarctica. (5) He headed a team of 17 scientists from different disciplines, concluding that the previous estimates of .8 to 1 meter sea level rise by the end of the century will be exceeded unless we imit the temperature rise to !.5 degrees C . The sea level rise will not be gradual and nobody can predict what will happen in the next 50 years. Some journalists have speculated about 10 feet by 2050 (post 23) but that is unrealistic. Post 23 described how badly South Florida can suffer by the combination of storms and modest sea level rises. Scientists are confident that there will no longer be any megafoods caused by breaking ice dams, releasing large volumes of water. Following the last ice age at least six of them occurred. One of them sent the people living in Doggerland to higher ground when the sea rose 1.5 metres in less than 2 years (7)

The .8 to 1 meter rise is based on one of 9 studies. Together they give a range from .7 to 1.2 metres. (67) They are all based on a gradually increasing melt, which Dr. Hansen explains will not be the case. (5) Reference 67 also gives an idea of how much ice can melt and how it effects sea levels

Estimates suggest that if the Greenland ice sheet was to melt away to nothing, sea levels would rise around 6 metres. To put that a different way, a loss of just one per cent of the Greenland ice cap would result in a sea level rise of 6cm.

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.

A 1% loss of ice from these three sources would produce a likely increase in sea levels of around 76cm. With the thermal expansion implied by such melting, and contributions from melting glaciers, the oceans would actually rise far more.

The 2 degrees C criterion

The 2003 estimate was 2.4 degrees C above pre-industrial temperatures by 2100. Since that time many more points were considered and with improved modeling the 2009 estimate was 5.2^o, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees. (48,49). In Copenhagen it was agreed to try to limit global warming to 2^o. The GHG reductions since that time and those submitted prior to the Paris conference are insufficient to meet that goal. The MIT estimates that it will be 3.1-5.2 degrees (10), while others show 2.7-3.7 degrees. (53) Dr. Hansen shows that 120,000 years ago when “global temperatures were just 2°C above the pre-industrial climate, sea levels stood at five to nine meters higher than they are today.” A report co-authored by Hansen, titled ‘Ice Melt, Sea Level Rise and Superstorms: Evidence from Paleoclimate Data, Climate Modeling, and Modern Observations shows that 2°C Global Warming is Highly Dangerous”. (9) Prior to the Paris conference the US, China and the European Union submitted plans for drastic reductions of greenhouse gases (post 20) but that along with submissions of other countries is not enough.The Paris agreement, signed by 195 countries, commits the signees to efforts to keep global temperature increases well below 2 degrees Celsius and to attempt to limit warming to 1.5 degrees. The required reductions of greenhouse gases are shown on the second graph above. Countries have till April 2017 to submit their plans to achieve it.

Decarbonisation, carbon capture and storage (CCS)

In June 2015 The G7 leading industrial nations agreed to cut greenhouse gases by phasing out the use of fossil fuels by the end of the century. (11) Countries across the globe have agreed to limit the global temperature increase from pre-industrial levels to below two degrees Celsius. This requires extensive reductions in global greenhouse gas (GHG)

emissions: 40 to 70% lower than 2010 levels by 2050, and near or below zero emissions by 2100 or 2070 (12 and 13). Good progress has been made in replacing fossil fuel for power generation with wind turbines, solar panels and concentrated solar power (CSP). The latter uses mirrors to generate steam for power plants, delivering electricity day and night. The world’s largest operating CSP plant is in the Sahara Desert. Another Sahara plant which will serve Europe is well underway. One in California was the world’s largest (392 MW) when commissioned in 2014 (14- 16).

Power generation amounts to about 21% of the world’s GHG emission. The other main sources are Industrial (17%), Transportation (14%) agriculture (13%), fossil fuel retrieval, processing and distribution (11%), residential, commercial and others (10%). (38). When all land transportation is electric from green sources we still have to deal with the emissions from airplanes, which contribute 5% of the global emission (39) and ships, which contribute 3% (40). At 0 emission there will be no longer any fossil fuel retrieval and all buildings could use green energy. Unless some of the other sources can go green, the total emissions reduction from green energy will be 21+14-5-3+11+10 = 48 %. The other 52% will require carbon capture and (CCS) to meet the G7 agreement. In 2015 there were 15 large-scale CCS projects in operation, with a further seven under construction. The 22 projects in operation or under construction represents a doubling since the start of this decade. The total CO₂ capture capacity of these 22 projects is around 40 million tonnes per annum (Mtpa).”(17). A Canadian firm, Inventys could make CCS much cheaper. They use modified heat exchange equipment which has a spoked wheel with solid absorbents, which rotates, picks up the CO2 in the stack and process it beside the stack. It has several advantages over liquid absorbents and is expected will bring the cost down from $45 per ton to $ 15 per ton.(51) Inventys could certainly help to reduce the cost.

Coal is essential to reduce metal ore to metal. Steel production alone amounts to 6% of the world’s GHG emission. The iron from which steel is made can be produced by direct reduction or in a blast furnace. One of the largest industrial CCS facilities for steel plants using direct reduction is the Emirates Steel in the UAE. 800,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) is captured annually. It is injected into existing oil fields for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) and storing it at the same time. (18) In Europe 700,000 tons per year of CO2 will be extracted from a French blast furnace. (27) Looking at the tables of existing plants I saw that EOR is rather common to store the captured CO2. Required capture from other industries includes cement kilns, breweries, production of plastics and many others.

Despite all the commitments for reduction there still is a lot of questionable development in the artic (point K) while Australia is greatly expanding their liquefied gas production. Chevron’s Gorgon $ 54 billion project will add 20 million tonnes per year capacity. Together with 4 other projects the Australian capacity is expected to more than double by 2020 to nearly 90 million tons per year. (26)

CCS from the atmosphere

When all cars, trucks, buses and trains run on green electricity and emissions from smokestacks are captured and stored we still have to catch the emission from ships, airplanes and most agricultural activities. Even the CO2 released from drinks does add to the emissions. Coca Cola drinks alone emit 3300 tons of CO2 per day. (19) That is 72% more than the emissions from that large blast furnace in France.

Air traffic is expected to double from 2014 to 2034 (20). Fortunately, there already are several companies, that capture, concentrate and purify the CO2 so all commercial CO2 can be recycled. (post 24), Canada’s Carbon Engineering can preserve CO2 in carbonate salt for later conversion to fuel. Converting CO2 to fuel is being developed and will be demonstrated at their facility in Squamish BC. (21) so eventually we will be able to recycle all those emissions rather than keep accumulating them.

New ways to utilize the captured CO2 rather than store it deep underground are being developed. The US Recovery act awarded part of $1.4 billion to 12 projects demonstrating what is possible. Three of them use the captured CO2 to grow algae from which fuels are made using different processes. Some produce gas or liquid fuel directly from CO2. Several others produce carbonates. Solid carbonates are ideal for long-term, safe aboveground storage without pipelines, subterranean injection, or concern about CO2 re-release to the atmosphere. 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.(46)

Biomass energy with CO2 capture and storage (BECS) is an effective way to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere. The burning of biomass is carbon neutral and when the CO2 is captured and converted into fuel it has the same effect as what Carbon Engineering will be doing. Between 1996 and 2002 at least 7 individuals and organizations studied the cost of keeping the CO2 level at 350 ppm. They found that “carbon capture and storage technologies applied to fossil fuels have the potential to reduce the cost of meeting the 350 ppm stabilisation targets by 50% compared to a

case where these technologies are not available and by 80% when BECS is allowed”. (45) The present required stabilisation target is 280 ppm. It can be expected that with BECS there will be similar economic benefits because BECS obtains fuel from the sky rather than from the earth.

A readily available source of biomass is the wood which, due to climate change, has been killed by the pine beetle. Charcoal production can now be regulated in a pyrolysis process where depending on temperature and flash speed the ratio between charcoal, gas and bio oil can be pre-determined. (44) B.C.’s mountain pine beetle infestation turned 75 per cent of the province’s lodgepole pines into stands of blue-stained, cracked dead wood. While some innovative new products have been developed the trees are difficult to log and even harder to mill, and by 2024 they’ll be too rotted to use. In Colorado, beetles have wiped out an area of lodgepole pine larger than Prince Edward Island. More than 80 per cent of those trees will never make their way to a lumberyard. Most of the time, short harvest timelines scare investors away. Colorado takes what it can, but most trees are simply chipped and left on the forest floor. (47) Again it shows that a global carbon tax would make it much easier to attract investment for such green technology, creating many new jobs.

Payment for CCS from a global carbon tax

To speed up the development of CCS it is logical to have a global carbon tax. It will allow countries to tax their carbon export without unfair competition or complicated border tax adjustments from countries without tax. The proceeds could, via an international fund be used to help poorer countries and pay for CCS on a per ton basis. Norway’s offshore tax is $ 75 per tonne of CO2 and their Statoil gets $ 75 for every tonne of CO2 which they withdraw from gas wells and store it deep underground where the pressure keeps it in liquid form. The profit is $58 per tonne (22). If companies world wide would be paid even part of the BC rate of $ 30 per tonne of CO2 it would be a great help.

Other advantages of a global carbon tax

Several years ago, companies with large gas reserves, Shell, BP and Statoil demanded global carbon pricing because it would force coal fired power plants to switch to natural gas, which emits only half the GHG (post 12). Even at the modest BC rate of $30 per tonne of CO2 the price of thermal coal would go up by at least 70%. (post17) This shows how a carbon tax can solve problems without having to go to special subsidies. More than 1000 companies of over 60 countries. Including the world’s third largest airline have demanded global carbon pricing because it will help their business. (post 12). Following the Paris conference, the coal to gas conversion has become less attractive. It is described as “picking the low hanging fruits” to reduce emissions, soon to be abandoned because all electricity generation will have to be green. For British Columbia a global carbon tax would allow rapid expansion of our unique wind power potential (post 21)

Resistance to carbon tax

In 2013 British Columbia had an excellent tax system, easy to implement and administer, while the US had introduced the Waxman-Markey bill, which would have made it easy to meet the Copenhagen agreement. Post 1 shows in detail how powerful organizations in both countries were not aware or ignored how all or most of the money flows back to the people and companies who paid the tax and published completely wrong figures on how it affects households. The perception still exists. In the second part of post 12 you can see how Mr. Leef gave a speech in the house, leaving the impression that the proceeds of the tax just vanish and nobody corrected him. While a revenue neutral tax reimburses all the money paid, the cost for energy, transportation, metals and other commodities depending on fossil fuel will increase. Those extra costs are minimal compared to what otherwise has to be paid to repair the storm damage, lost food and the building of huge dikes along all low areas around the world.

The BC revenue neutral tax is admired in the US and the UK as the best solution. A recent study by the US Carbon Tax Centre shows that the BC tax has reduced GHG emissions by 20.5% compared to the GDP and 13% per person. (25) Washington and Oregon are prepared to adapt it as part of the Pacific Coast Collaborative, signed in October 2013. This will bring carbon pricing to 4 states and one province with a combined population of 53 million people and a GDP of $2.8 trillion. (36)

The tables which the BC Government has to publish yearly, show how much carbon tax was collected and how all of it was refunded. People and businesses which use below average fossil fuel get more money back than they paid in tax, encouraging further savings. The latest table shows 17 refund categories. 13.4% is, via the low income climate action tax credit, paid to the poor who pay no income tax. Low income earners, those in the two lowest income tax brackets, get 19.2% via a 5% reduction of their income tax. Another 9.1% goes to 5 well defined personal credits. Via reduced tax rates 13.4% is paid out to corporations and 15.2% to small businesses. The remainder 29.7% goes to 7 specific business and service credits, showing how much money goes to each. (23) In the US, the Sanders Boxer bill proposes to return 60% to households, use 25% for debt reduction and 15% for green projects. (24)

Our land-locked Alberta oil

Pipelines may leak, trains may derail so how can we export oil without facing fierce public opposition. Some say we should leave the oil in the ground because our customers will cause a lot of greenhouse emission when they burn it. Why should we impoverish ourselves to see other countries supply our customers with the same amount of oil? It makes little change in the world’s GHG emission. So the question is pipe or rail? Both are understaffed, have questionable regulations and inadequate oversight. A lot more money will have to be spent to gain public acceptance. If the Paris commitments will be followed, oil will become a sunset industry and 15 years from now exports may dwindle, so why pay for pipelines which will have a poor return on investment. That points in favour of new railways, which will be able to carry other goods after the oil transport is no longer required.

Present pipeline problems

The Northern Gateway has virtually been canceled because the public has never been informed about a number of design features of the pipeline. In addition, tanker transport of diluted bitumen (dilbit), which sinks within a few hours in the water can’t be accepted unless tankers have their own cleanup equipment and trained personnel to use it. Alternatively, the tanker could be accompanied by another vessel with crew to clean up any spills but either solution will cost too much. The Kinder Morgan pipeline faces similar problems and is opposed by the mayors of the two municipalities involved, Burnaby and Vancouver. The Energy East pipeline also faces opposition and does not give direct access to Asian markets, which was a main advantage of the two BC pipelines.

Present alternatives to bring oil from Alberta to Asia.

There are at least 7 alternative proposals to move the oil from Alberta to Asia, 4 via the West coast and 3 via the arctic.

The 3 railway options for the West coast are the G7G to transport raw bitumen for export via Valdez, Alaska, as documented in post 18, Mr. Black’s Kitimat Clean Ltd and Pacific Future Energy will transport raw bitumen by rail to refineries near Kitimat. There also is a pipeline proposal from Eagle Spirit which calls for upgrading bitumen to synthetic light crude in Alberta or NE British Columbia and shipping it via a pipeline to Prince Rupert. (26) The artic proposals are for a pipeline to Tuktoyaktuk, and rail shipment to Port Churchill and Hay River. The latter includes barging along the Mackenzie River. (28- 31). While 16 Korean built ice breaking tankers are being considered, they are for LNG. Only 1 oil tanker which can plow through 1.2 meter thick ice at 3 knots and her soon to be built sister ship will work the arctic but they are reserved for Russian duty. (33) It will require a lot of fossil fuel to break so much ice and does not help the agreed deep DE carbonization.

The G7G railway would appear to be the winner. It evolved from a $ 6 million study to connect Alaska to the Southern states and to gain access to huge ore deposits, Ultimately it could connect to Europe and Asia via twin tunnels undereneath the Bering Strait(32). Since 2010 a Canadian company did further studies and made arrangements for oil transport. First Nations were involved and may eventually own the railway. The main advantages are that it avoids additional tanker traffic through BC waters and that Valdez is 2-4 days closer to Asian ports than our ports.The original cost estimates were quite promising (post18). According to a recent $ 1.8 million Alberta Government study by the Van Horne Institute it is much more if you include all the rolling stock(68) Now that oil will become a sunset industry it is also quite important that it will carry minerals, grain, potash, forest products and general merchandise after oil transport is no longer required. The Alberta study shows that the railway will only have gentle curves and no steep inclines, allowing 80km/hr speed for full trains and 100km/hr for empties. Eight trains per day will be sufficient to carry 1 million barrels of raw bitumen (neatbit) per day from Alberta to Delta Junction. That is equivalent to 1.3 million bpd of dilbit. That is more than the 2 contested BC pipelines can carry. The dilbit volumes for Northern Gateway and Kinder Morgan are 525,000+ 590,000=1.12 million barrels per day. With additional rolling stock the G7G will be able to carry much more.”. The 1.3 million bpd is also 17 times as much as the highest volume for Arctic proposals. The estimated cost for transport to Delta Junction is around $20 billion. It includes the rolling stock of 208 locomotives and 6072 tank cars, loading, unloading and storage facilities and a host of other equipment.Transfer to the existing pipeline to Valdez depends on a number of factors to be negotiated with the oil companies that own the Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS). There is a tax incentive to increase their production, which could make sharing more difficult. In the worst case extra rail and or pipeline transport to a new terminal in Valdez may be required. That could drive up the cost to $35 billion. Even at that cost the project is feasible, considering the access to minerals.

Now that we are in an era of deep decarbonisation I feel that an alternative electric estimate is essential and apparently this is being considered under a developing technology called “IndyDrive”. In the long run it may be cheaper and may be the key technology for transferring long-haul truck traffic off our highways. As planned, the diesel fuel has to be transported by rail to expensive midway and terminal fuelling stations included in the estimate. Secondly as shown on post21 and a summary on http://www.nsnews.com/opinion/letters/letter-wind-power-not-site-c-the-way-to-go-1.1940770. BC has an abundance of hard to sell electricity. When a global carbon tax will solve that problem the diesel fuel will become more expensive and additional windpower can be used to feed the project. One important point is that the metallic mineral potential within the project corridor is estimated to generate in place gross metal values between $333 and $659 billion over 30 years of operation. That, and the potential of all those other commodities makes the project a winner as far as I can see. For media reaction and offers for 50% ownership by First Nations see references 79 to 76

Pipeline problems

As shown at the end of post 1 there are 8 questions emailed to Enbridge prior to publishing post 1. Enbridge acknowledged receipt but they remain unanswered and are not addressed in the NEB report. Some of them apply to all pipelines. It involves crack detection equipment, repair and maintenance procedures and in particular leak detection instrumentation. Internal instruments can only detect large leaks and cause so many false alarms that they can be ignored or misinterpreted. During Enbridge’s Kalamazoo spill a large leak spilled for 17 hours, totaling about 3 million litres (19,000 barrels). Recently a Nexen pipe had a smaller leak but spilled over 60% more, 5 million liters (31,000 barrels) because it apparently had no external instruments to catch smaller leaks and kept leaking undetected for 2 weeks.

Following the Kalamazoo spill it was stated that more precise external instruments were available but were expensive and seldom used. Obviously the pipeline could be double hulled so that any leaked oil can reach an instrument rather than disappearing into the soil. A cheaper solution appeared to be an acoustic tracing cable which, was described by Wikipedia and was advertised by Westminster as follows: “AFOPSS un-rivalled sensitivity means the sensor can detect analyse and locate leaks or potential threats instantly, regardless of distance. AFOPSS will alert you with accurate (GPS / GIS) location and intelligent event analysis in time to mitigate the risk from leakage or threats such as digging, landslides, drilling, hot tapping or attempted sabotage.” They also mentioned that it monitors every metre of the line.

The Nexen line is insulated and double hulled. When I commented on a desmog article about the instrumentation I received a reply from an oilman, who holds a patent on leak detection instrumentation. He stated that acoustics are too slow and that the battery operated, GPS enabled sensors which I suggested would be far too expensive to maintain. Hardwired instruments would be cheaper (34) but were apparently not used. So we have to rely on pigs and hydrostatic testing but how often is it done?

My concern is that even under the new US rules stated below it can take ½ year after inspection before any action is taken: “Revise Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations 195.452(h)(2), the "discovery of condition," to require, in cases where a determination about pipeline threats has not been obtained within 180 days following the date of inspection, that pipeline operators notify the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and provide an expected date when adequate information will become available. (P-12-4)”

If pigs indeed continuously monitor the pipelines and the records are kept should they not on a regular basis be reviewed by engineers with experience in crack progression, like doctors examine x-rays? They then should submit their findings to the authorities and repairs agreed upon. It seems also logical that inspections are done by independent companies. It is hard to find Canadian maintenance regulations but the description of Alberta Energy and Utilities Board looks encouraging. It would help if the main media would give the public some idea what is involved in making pipelines safer.

The US regulators admitted that they did not provide sufficient oversight (post 1) the same happens in Canada as revealed by a recent audit of the NEB. (35)

After the recent Husky spill, which lasted 14 hours and fouled part of the North Saskatchewan river, it was revealed that the line had not been inspected by the NEB since it was built 19 years ago and had 2 previous leaks. (77) Husky inspects the line every 2 years

Railway problems

The Lac Megantic disaster and several subsequent accidents with volatile oil have given rail transport a bad name. Again it can be seen how skimping on personnel and lax regulations are the cause. In North Dakota the oil is only sparsely sampled at the source, leading to improper classification.(37) In Canada it is unbelievable that a 72 car fully loaded oil train with 5 locomotives is allowed to be operated by a single person and that it can be left parked unattended on a long incline. I got the following comment from someone who knows more about regulations: “That’s the situation with Class One regulated railways. They must haul a railcar presented and they don’t “own” any rolling stock any-more."

"There is no accountability and its all finger pointing and a long investigation by TSB or TC and then a report and then its, this or that or some other mechanical failure or railbed track issue. 18 things conspired to allow that Lac Megantic tragedy to occur. Not one thing, as you wrote in your blog,”

A recent article in the Globe and Mail shows that in the US the FRA shies away from criminal investigation. As a result, penalties have little deterrent effect. The agency also doesn’t have a complete understanding of the risks of rail shipments of hazardous materials (26)

Rail shipment of raw bitumen is by far the safest. It does not flow, as demonstrated by Mr. Black of the proposed railway transport to Kitimat shows, by holding a glass jar with bitumen upside down.(26) It requires special railroad cars and new loading stations in the oilfields. The operation and advantages for Gulf Coast refineries are described in post 18. Advantages and disadvantages are shown in a 2013 article. At that time most were small loading stations and only one planned station would accommodate unit trains, which obviously will reduce the cost. (39)

Novel storage and recycling of captured CO2

Following point E above I found some further details.

Carbonate salt, fuel cells and hydrogen storage

Conversion into carbonate salts for above ground storage and later conversion to fuel is not only used for CO2 obtained from the air, like Carbon Engineering does but also applicable to contaminated flue gases. It generates electricity in the process and will significantly reduce the cost of CCU. The US Department of Energy sponsors 2 projects among other second stage selections for CCU. Alcoa was awarded $12 million to refine their process while $ 25 million went to Skyonic Corporation (Austin, Texas) - Skyonic Corporation to continue the development of SkyMine® mineralization technology

Alcoa, Inc. (Alcoa, Pa.)—Alcoa, Inc., and its partners, U.S. Nels, CO2 Solutions Inc., and Strategic Solutions Inc., will capture and convert CO2 into mineral carbonates for reuse. Flue gas will be treated in a sodium alkali scrubber design, coupled with a carbonic anhydrase-based enzyme catalyst, to convert alkaline clay to carbonate-enhanced clay for soil remediation.

The SkyMine process transforms CO2 into solid carbonate and/or bicarbonate materials while also removing sulfur oxides, nitrogen dioxide, mercury and other heavy metals from flue gas streams of industrial processes. Solid carbonates are ideal for long-term, safe aboveground storage without pipelines, subterranean injection, or concern about CO2 re-release to the atmosphere. The project team plans to process CO2-laden flue gas from a Capital Aggregates, Ltd. cement manufacturing plant in San Antonio, Texas. (DOE Share: $25,000,00) (46)

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

Molten carbonate fuel cells actually rely on carbon dioxide to operate. They take it in at one electrode. That carbon dioxide is then used to form ions that conduct current to the opposite electrode, where the carbon dioxide is emitted. Finally, it is pumped back to the first electrode to be reused, forming a complete loop.

To capture carbon dioxide, this loop would be interrupted. Instead of recycling carbon dioxide, the fuel cell would get the carbon dioxide it needs from the exhaust in a power plant. These exhaust gases contain about 5 to 15 percent carbon dioxide, diluted by other gases, mostly nitrogen. The fuel cell would selectively take up the carbon dioxide, use it to form ions, and then emit it in a much more concentrated stream at the opposite electrode. The gases emitted there would be about 70 percent carbon dioxide. (56)

Direct conversion of captured CO2 to other products

Carbon Engineering’s direct conversion from captured CO2 can also become very productive. They will soon produce synthetic liquid hydrocarbons at an estimated cost of $1 to $1.50 per litre.(21) Recently a new stable, re-usable catalyst has been developed, which will speed up the process. It also allows much faster production of chemicals to make plastics (53). Removing carbon from the air is essential because agriculture, ships and airplanes emit 37% of the world’s greenhouse gases. (38,40,41,)

How to use captured CO2 to make cement

The cement industry is another main contributor to the world’s GHG emissions. The main process is explained by an Calera spokesman. “The Calera process essentially mimics marine cement, which is produced by coral when making their shells and reefs, taking the calcium and magnesium in seawater and using it to form carbonates at normal temperatures and pressures. "We are turning CO2 into carbonic acid and then making carbonate," Constantz says. "All we need is water and pollution."(59)

Canada can play a role in using captured CO2 to improve the strength of precast concrete. 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 captured CO2 is shown for each. “This technology has attracted national and international attention and the company’s future is bright indeed.” (64,65,66)