John Brian Shannon2013-05-18T02:31:59-04:00John Brian Shannonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.ca/author/index.php?author=john-brian-shannonCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for John Brian ShannonGood old fashioned elbow grease.Dear John: My Letter From President Obamatag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.13744092012-03-23T04:13:24-04:002012-05-22T05:12:01-04:00John Brian Shannonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-brian-shannon/if he refused to allow the Keystone XL pipeline to be built directly over the Ogallala reservoir in Nebraska.
Everything from Congressional gridlock to lame-duck disease was forecast if he didn't sign right here -- and right now!
Nice try. Not only did the trap fail -- it failed massively. The President stood his ground and voted with his heart. And everyone in America said: "Well, the President has decided, now what's for supper?"
That was then, this is now. As I write this, four months after President Obama deferred his decision on the Keystone XL pipeline, the stock market is hitting post-crisis highs and President Obama's approval rating is better now (46 per cent) -- than in November, 2011 (43 per cent). And, the sky hasn't fallen.
Not only that, as the President stepped up to the microphone Thursday to announce he has directed his administration to streamline approval of the Cushing, Oklahoma, to Port Arthur, Texas, leg of the Keystone XL pipeline. He looked confident, unruffled, and spoke optimistically about America's energy future. And why wouldn't he be optimistic?
A few weeks ago, I wrote to the President urging him to make North America more energy self-sufficient and to promote common-sense regulatory controls for all forms of energy in our hemisphere -- while at the same time continuing to encourage both sustainable energy projects and responsible energy use.
I was pleased to receive an impressive reply from President Obama, I have enclosed it for you below:
Thank you for writing. I appreciate hearing from you, and I share the vision of millions of Americans who want to take control of our Nation's energy future. My Administration's all-of-the-above energy strategy is about developing every source of American energy -- a strategy aimed at saving families and businesses money at the pump by reducing our reliance on foreign oil, expanding oil and gas production, and positioning the United States as the global leader in clean energy.
Just like last year, gas prices are climbing across our country, and we are experiencing another painful reminder of why developing new sources of energy is so critical to our future. When gas prices go up, everyone is impacted, and Americans have to stretch their paychecks even further.
The hard truth is there are no overnight solutions to our energy challenges. The only way to deal with this problem is through a sustained, serious, all-of-the-above approach. Under my Administration, American oil production is at its highest level in 8 years, and we are now less reliant on foreign oil than in any of the past 16 years. We have more working oil and gas rigs than the rest of the world combined, and we have opened up millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration where appropriate and where it can be done safely. My Administration has also approved dozens of new pipelines to move oil around, including from Canada, which will help create jobs and encourage more energy production. Thanks to our Nation's booming oil production, more efficient vehicles, and a world-class refining sector that last year was a net exporter for the first time in 60 years, we cut net imports by 10 percent --or a million barrels a day -- in the last year alone.
My Administration will continue to look for every way we can help consumers -- from relieving distribution bottlenecks to ensuring speculators do not take advantage of volatility in the oil markets. To decrease our dependence on foreign oil, we established the toughest new efficiency standards for cars and trucks in history. These fuel economy standards will double the fuel efficiency of our cars and light trucks by the middle of the next decade, which means filling up your car every two weeks instead of every week.
But as a country that has 2 percent of the world's oil reserves but consumes 20 percent of the world's oil, we cannot just drill our way to lower gas prices. The United States leads the world in natural gas production, with reserves that can last nearly 100 years--a supply that can power our cars, homes, and factories in a cleaner and cheaper way, and one that experts believe will support more than 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade. However, we must utilize this reserve without putting the health and safety of Americans at risk. That is why, for the first time ever, I am requiring all companies drilling for gas on public lands to disclose the chemicals they use.
Thanks in part to my Administration's investments in clean energy -- the largest in American history --the United States has nearly doubled renewable energy generation from wind, solar, and geothermal sources, and thousands of Americans now have jobs as a result. By cooperating with the private sector, we have positioned our country to be the world's leading manufacturer of the high-tech batteries that will power the next generation of American cars. I have repeatedly called on Congress to stop giving away $4 billion a year in oil subsides to an industry that has never been more profitable, and instead to pass clean energy tax credits to cultivate a market for innovation in clean energy technology. And I have directed the Department of the Interior to allow the development of enough clean energy on public lands to power three million homes. The United States military--the largest energy consumer in the world--is also doing its part, making one of the largest commitments to clean energy in history.
Securing our Nation's energy future is one of the major challenges of our time, and will require the efforts of our brightest scientists and most creative companies. Americans must summon the spirit of optimism and the willingness to tackle tough problems that led previous generations to meet the challenges of their times. My Administration is making a serious, sustained commitment to tackling these problems, and I encourage you to learn more about our efforts at www.WhiteHouse.gov/energy.
]]>Size Isn't Everything, Baby: The New, Small "Green" Nuclear Reactortag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.13082762012-03-09T07:54:02-05:002012-05-09T05:12:02-04:00John Brian Shannonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-brian-shannon/Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant disaster has precipitated a world of change in Japan's nuclear power industry.
Japan is now burning fossil-fuels to replace the missing electrical generation capacity and has recently signed an agreement with Saudi Arabia to purchase three times their total 2010 oil imports.
In the interests of public safety and for the peace of mind of residents who live near the numerous and widely-scattered nuclear plants in Japan, the government has ordered "stress test" inspections of all nuclear plants in the country.
Even so, due to rising political pressure from ordinary citizens and the growing anti-nuclear power protest movement there, not every plant which has been "stress-test approved" may restart.
With those daily Japanese newspaper headlines in mind, the government of Japan and power plant operators are discussing the lengthy and hugely expensive decommissioning process for the Fukushima plant, which may take more than 40 years to achieve, at a cost estimated to between 15 and 45 billion (US) dollars. It looks like the Japanese taxpayers are stuck paying for the full decommissioning cost.
As you may be aware, Germany is decommissioning all of it's nuclear power plants by 2022 -- although in typical German fashion, they are ahead of schedule.
Many of Germany's nuclear power plants are decades old, problem-plagued, and would have required a staggering amount of investment to meet contemporary safety standards. In Germany's case, it was less costly over the long term to employ a temporary feed-in tariff scheme to speed earlier adoption of green energy, rather than constantly upgrade 17 old nuclear reactors to ever-changing standards.
Italy got out of the nuclear business in 1987 as the costs to retrofit their old power plants with better technology exceeded any profit they would have realized during the rest of their power-producing lifetimes. Switzerland has committed to scrapping their nuclear power program by 2045.
The United States, Russia, and Canada are all in the same boat -- as they continue to operate many old, lower-tech, and very costly to upgrade, large nuclear power plants.
However, a new hope for the nuclear power industry has arrived in the form of a brand-new nuclear power plant design -- known as small scale "modular" nuclear reactor, which is a profoundly better answer to the ultra-costly retrofitting of very old and large nuclear plants -- and long overdue for most of the world's reactors.
Modular reactors are much smaller (never larger than 300 megawatts) and are almost innocuous-looking when compared to the monster-sized nuclear power plants of the 1960s and 1970s. Best of all, they all feature 21st-century architecture with many "simple" redundancies built right in, such as gravity-fed cooling systems which remove the problem of cataclysmic coolant pump failures as has happened at Fukushima and other nuclear disasters. Modular nuclear reactors will be the future of nuclear energy and it turns out that the U.S. will be the first adopter.
Two large conventional nuclear power plants, now under construction, will be completed in the U.S., replete with the latest safety systems and some design elements borrowed from modular nuclear reactors -- at the nuclear power plant in Votgle, Georgia, and a smaller unit in North Carolina. After those plants go online, it is expected further U.S. plants will be small scale modular nuclear reactors between 45 and 300 megawatts -- tiny by nuclear power standards.
The modular nuclear reactor -- with its low profile, easy location requirements, small nuclear fuel and water appetite, low installation costs, easy grid connection, uber-safe design, and ability to generate both power and profits in a dramatically shortened time frame -- is going to be a tough competitor to beat.
The brilliance of modular power plants is that they mesh seamlessly with PV-solar, and wind turbine power. Along with sustainable energy, the dream of "all clean electricity -- all the time" is at the very least within our grasp.
By the time those nuclear plants in Germany have been completely decommissioned by 2025 or so, we should be at "all clean electricity -- all the time" in most of the industrialized world. Modular nuclear reactors will be an important and welcome partner of sustainable energy.
]]>Solar Power Gets the Might of the U.S. Military Behind Ittag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.12724242012-02-15T08:00:10-05:002012-04-16T05:12:01-04:00John Brian Shannonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-brian-shannon/launched into outer space was from Cape Kennedy, Florida during the "Space Race" of the 1960s.
Many of those old, reliable PV solar-powered satellites are still up there sending back (decidedly low-tech) information, as compared to the satellite technology of today.
Q: What does this have to do with the U.S. military now installing PV solar panels at exponential rates on it's bases you ask?
A: Price.
As production of land-based solar panels have ramped up -- prices have dropped dramatically. In fact, solar module prices have dropped so fast, several large solar manufacturers have gone bankrupt -- unable to stay with the market. Lower priced (PV solar-specific) materials, manufacturing costs, and technology have all conspired to force a huge price drop.
The U.S. military, suddenly faced with a shrinking budget and the need to lower costs over the long term, turned to an old, reliable partner -- solar power. In October 2010, the U.S. Navy set a goal to produce 50 per cent of its onshore energy needs from renewables by 2020.
The Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR) complex in San Diego, California, has just completed installation of 1.3 megawatts of solar panels, at the Navy's headquarters for high-tech military command, communications and surveillance.
SPAWAR now has the U.S. Navy's largest contiguous rooftop solar array with 5,376 high-performance SolarWorld photo-voltaic solar panels providing electricity for the site and is part of a military-wide effort to conserve energy, lower costs and reduce reliance on imported fuels. Any surplus electricity generated on-site, is sold to the San Diego grid.
For another example, U.S. Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake (NAWS China Lake), California, is installing a photo-voltaic solar power plant financed through a 20-year power purchase agreement (PPA) between SunPower and the U.S Navy.
Under the terms of the agreement, the Navy has no upfront costs. The plant is expected to produce 13.78 megawatts of power for the California electrical grid and cover 30 per cent of NAWS China Lake's energy needs.
With zero capital investment and giving up only otherwise unusable land, the Navy will reduce costs by saving an estimated $13 million (over the next 20 years) on their NAWS China Lake electricity bill by paying a discounted rate for electricity.
"...the Department of Defense, working with us, the world's largest consumer of energy, will make one of the largest commitments to clean energy in history -- with the Navy purchasing enough capacity to power a quarter of a million homes a year."
The U.S. Air Force is getting into the photo-voltaic solar power business too -- making the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Top 25 list of Green Power Partners on Jan. 31, 2012 for being one of the leading buyer's of green power in America.
At it's Colorado Springs Air Force Academy, a six megawatt PV solar power plant is operating with additions to generation capacity already underway.
Beginning in 1999, the U.S. military has installed solar power systems at many bases, including Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada, Pearl Harbor, Fort Dix, Coronado Island, and the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado -- among others.
The vast United States military often sets tone and precedent for the rest of the country. This is certainly becoming the case with solar energy. Cities and utility companies have taken careful note of the PPA model used by the Navy and the Air Force in their dealings with utility companies.
Boulder City, Nevada, has negotiated an outstanding PPA agreement to lease 8000 acres of City land for solar power plant use -- which, when completed, will produce 1400 megawatts of electricity.
Boulder City's financial picture hasn't been all that good. It's 2011 municipal budget was roughly $25 million and it is $96.2 million in debt. However, an additional 12 million per year for the leased land (a total of $480 million dollars over the term of the contract) will allow it to thrive and pay off it's debt.
Two solar companies have paid in advance -- a total of $8.5 million dollars -- as a non-refundable down payment towards the leased lands project. A third company involved in a solar leasing opportunity presented a non-refundable cheque for $500,000 to the City so it could upgrade services.
The U.S. military, led by the Navy and the Air Force have developed an exciting and fully-transferable PV solar model -- one that might have the sun working for us in ways we never before imagined.
Who would've thought that the sun would help pay our bills, pay off City debt, and provide discounted electricity to leaseholders or landowners?
According to the Solar Energy Industries Association, the state of California is going from 524 megawatts of public utility installed solar (as of January 2012) to 18,231 megawatts of public utility installed solar power within five years.
This number does not include any solar power installations under one megawatt -- nor does it include military or other government solar.
]]>Biofuel a Win-Win: Green and Cost-Effectivetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.12148542012-02-01T09:00:50-05:002012-04-02T05:12:01-04:00John Brian Shannonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-brian-shannon/
Boeing is testing biofuel use on it's aircraft. In 2010, Boeing tested passenger jets and a U.S. Navy F/A 18A Super Hornet with aviation fuel and biofuel with excellent results.
The Bio-SPK fuel blends used in the test flights have all either met or exceeded the performance specifications for jet fuel.
For example, the Bio-SPK fuel blends demonstrated higher energy density per unit mass than typical jet fuel, enabling airplanes to travel farther using less fuel. For all of the test flights, the blended biofuel displayed no adverse effects on any of the aircraft systems.
Other biofuels are also becoming available. Diesel-fuel can also be extracted from plant sources and in many jurisdictions, used cooking oil is collected from restaurants and homes and filtered to become vegetable-oil based diesel fuel.
Some cities have done the calculations, and surprise! -- it's more cost effective to re-process that oil than to deal with the harm to the environment from toxic used oil. Not only that, many government vehicles run on that free (for the cost of pick-up and minor refining) fuel, including buses, trucks, and other government fleet vehicles.
For environmentalists, getting two uses instead of one -- per million litres of cooking oil -- is a sign of progress.
When "going green" equals profit, that's when environmental progress in the transportation sector will take off for real. Some companies in Europe buy used oil or freshly-harvested vegetable oil, refine it, and sell it on the open market for use in vehicles. Interestingly, vegetable oil-based diesel fuel emits less carbon dioxide per gallon of fuel than other transportation fuels.
Quite unlike fossil fuels, which cause a huge net gain to our atmosphere -- the CO2 equation couldn't be better for plant-based diesel. The vast majority of the CO2 gathered by the plant during its lifetime is stored in the plant (and then becomes stored in the fuel) which, after combustion, simply returns to the atmosphere from whence it came -- making plant-based fuel CO2 neutral for all intents and purposes.
Some countries have decided that biofuels belong in their future and have set thousands or millions of hectares aside for biofuel crop agriculture, as discussed in the book Biodiesel 2020 -- 2nd Edition by Will Thurmond. He writes:
Biodiesel growth from non-food feedstocks is gaining traction around the world. For example, China recently set aside an area the size of England to produce jatropha and other non-food plants for biodiesel. India has up to 60 million hectares of non-arable land available to produce jatropha, and intends to replace 20 per cent of diesel fuels with jatropha-based biodiesel. In Brazil and Africa, there are significant programs underway dedicated to producing non-food crops jatropha and castor for biodiesel.
The biofuel industry does have its detractors, however. I will list and briefly deal with their complaints below:
1) Most biofuel crops require plenty of water to grow.
True. Therefore, grow them in Indonesia or other rainforest-like zones -- not in the U.S., where biofuel crops effectively replace food crops. In fact, the trend is already towards locating biofuel farms in under-developed areas. Some plants, such as Jatropha, actually grow better in poor soil and in blistering hot conditions, with the proviso of plentiful rainfall.
2) Some crops don't return enough profit for investors.
True. Much depends on the biofuel crop you choose to grow. Jatropha and sugar cane are more efficiently converted to ethanol than corn, for example.
3) Apparently, biofuels must replace all conventional petroleum!
False. Why is it necessary for biofuels to completely replace conventional fuels? It can be a useful part of the transportation fuels solution when used as a petroleum feedstock.
4) Biofuels require expensive new infrastructure.
False. Biofuels provide work for farm labourers, income for farmers and contribute to third-world GDP. A much lower level of infrastructure is required to produce biofuels as compared to petroleum fuels -- especially when compared to deep-water drilling/extraction.
5) Biofuels are more expensive to produce than conventional petroleum-sourced fuels.
True (temporarily). As with most products -- when production ramps up economies of scale kick in, even as the knowledge base improves. Corn, which is considered first-generation biofuel, is being superseded by second-generation sugar cane and soybean. Next up are Jatropha, Camelina, and other non-food crops which grow in poor soils.
Much of the "easy" petroleum has already been -- or is about to be extracted and then released (burned) into our atmosphere. From this point onward, it is "hard" oil all the way. Deep-water oil wells, tar sands bitumen, sour crude, and depleted reservoirs are going to be the mantra henceforth. Biofuels can reduce the pressure on petroleum producers by dramatically adding to their feedstocks.
The quiet revolution is already well begun in the biofuel industry as it enters it's high-growth stage -- and it is only going to get better from here.
]]>God Save Our Queen!tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.11751632012-01-16T02:05:25-05:002012-03-16T05:12:02-04:00John Brian Shannonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-brian-shannon/
"Propter eos autem."
Is this the way to show ourselves properly grateful to those who at first allowed us, then protected us, later promoted us and then freely and willingly gave us our independence -- with no revolution necessary Historically speaking, how common is that?
I'm not saying this arcane debate shouldn't occur. Rather, such debate is fitting for hallowed universities of sterling reputation and in the properly respectful and hushed tones reserved for impeccably credentialed constitutional professors.
I'm certain a debate on the subject between such distinguished profs would result in the following joint statement being issued: "We would show ourselves ungrateful in the extreme were we to cast off our historic promoters, protectors, and guarantors of nationhood." Harrumph!
The question then, is this: With the limited time MP's have available to them while the House of Commons is in session, should they spend time on removing the British monarchy from Canada's Constitution or should we have them spend time on the following?
Jobs, Attawapiskat, the health and well-being of citizens, the economy, world peace concomitant with our country's peace-keeping efforts around the globe, rebuilding our tattered transportation infrastructure -- you may recall recent media reports about the condition of the Champlain Bridge for just one example -- and the military defence of our sovereign territory. Other pressing, important matters also await the government's attention.
All of the things above are more important than taking time out of our MP's schedules to disrespect the British Monarchy and the very ideals of our democracy.
We have real problems in Canada at the moment -- and the British Monarchy isn't one of them.
"A-riding in a storm-toss'd ship, 'tis not the time to inspect the maker's frescoes."
To read why the Queen doesn't matter, click here. For an excerpt from Sally Bedell Smith's biography: Elizabeth The Queen: The Life of a Modern Monarch click here.
]]>A Solution to Northern Gateway to Please Everyonetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.11437402012-01-09T03:32:07-05:002012-03-09T05:12:01-05:00John Brian Shannonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-brian-shannon/
Try to think of our world without the following: plastics, internal combustion engines for cars, trucks and ships. Almost all aircrafts use oil-based fuel -- with the arguable exception of hot-air balloons and gliders -- and good luck trying to manufacture them without modern petroleum products.
The benefits of the petroleum-based economy are far too numerous to detail here, but in the transportation, mining, medicine, sports, construction and technology sectors, we would not have excelled as a civilization without the oil-based economic model. Without oil, we would have achieved much -- just not as much!
Therefore, the question that needs to be asked: "How can our petroleum-based economy operate in an environmentally responsible way -- while costs to industry and consumers remain reasonable?"
As we speak, the future of the Keystone XL pipeline and the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline are under consideration.
What hasn't been a part of the debate is the most obvious discussion of all: How "clean" will that oil be while it is flowing through a pipeline or while being transported in a super-tanker? From this environmentalist's perspective, it can't be clean enough.
Both pipelines will cut across some of the prettiest scenery on the planet. Accidents do happen -- of that there is no doubt. There WILL be a spill somewhere, sometime, and other than building the best pipeline possible and following the safest route, the only other factor that could make a difference is the quality of the oil flowing through the pipe.
Kitimat, BC photo by: Amanda Lang
Take a minute to look at the scenery within a five-minute drive of the port at Kitimat, B.C. -- the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline terminus -- while you decide if having the best environmental standards applied to the tar-sands and its petroleum transport system qualifies as "spending" or "investing" in B.C.'s future.
See, you're an investor in Canada's environment. I knew you were a good person! We are all environmental stakeholders when it comes right down to it.
Because B.C. has some of the most gorgeous scenery on Earth, I advocate strongly that every drop of oil loaded into pipelines should be highly-refined at or near the source of extraction to minimize transport of toxic crude oil over our environment.
Highly-refined oil -- prior to the addition of other ingredients -- is of lower toxicity. Shipping low-toxicity liquids would be light years better than the present practice of shipping toxic crude oil.
An interesting alternative to shipping raw crude oil employed by the world's number one oil exporter, Saudi Arabia, is to highly refine petroleum into ethane gas which is I think is a safer product to transport, from an environmental standpoint. If a leak occurs while the product is in transit, it doesn't destroy underground aquifers or kill ocean life.
Another 21st-century method employed in Saudi Arabia is to highly-refine petroleum into products. Saudi Arabia has just signed a $20.6 billion-dollar agreement to build another petro-chemical plant in Yanbu, Saudi Arabia for the purpose of manufacturing and exporting various plastic products which have been refined from Saudi crude.
So, dear reader, I have left the best for last. China is so thirsty for oil that it is happy to purchase petroleum product in any form we choose to sell it -- and their economy is cash-rich and oil-starved. How does that work for you?
China has financed many projects all over the world in recent years, including billion-dollar oil refineries and the $15 billion-dollar Lesotho Highlands Power Project (LHPP) which consists of 10,000 megawatts of combined wind turbine and hydro-electricity for Lesotho and South Africa's electrical grid and other large-scale projects.
There is no reason at all for Canada to be shy about approaching China with a financing proposal for a world-class petroleum refinery located near the tar sands site -- thereby earning a lifetime customer and committed partner to the project's success.
For once, getting the financing to build a world-class, environmental best-practices oil-refinery and the necessary transportation links required to get it to market isn't that much of a problem. Thanks, China!
We need to admit that this country is going to mine, upgrade, sell and transport tar sands product and there is no longer any thought about stopping it. Why not allow China to finance a world-class refinery to highly refine oil into a low-toxicity state so that at the very least it can be safely transported and shipped over our landscapes and seaways?
A win-win solution exists for both countries and the only worthwhile question remaining is: Which does China want to finance?
A) An "ultra clean oil product" pipeline
B) An ethane gas pipeline
C) Plastic products delivered to the coast by upgraded rail link
How does my environmentalist viewpoint compare to the present practice of flowing toxic liquids through pipelines and shipping toxic crude oil using single-hulled super-tankers?
Affix your gaze to the end result I propose: A world-class tar sands refinery located near the extraction site, dedicated to refining tar-sands into some of the safest and cleanest products available and then transporting it in that low-toxicity state using world-class land and sea transportation methods -- all financed by China. Think of all the value-added activity, as opposed to merely exporting a raw resource. Just try to estimate the number of jobs this would provide for Canadians.
No doubt, it will take leadership to bring this improved environmental vision to completion.]]>Kyoto Is Dead -- But Don't Blame Peter Kenttag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.11736252012-01-02T00:25:53-05:002012-03-02T05:12:01-05:00John Brian Shannonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-brian-shannon/
Where is the leadership to replace Kyoto with a better plan for reducing airborne emissions if Kyoto was so deeply flawed? I don't see it. The emptiness of intergalactic space compares with the dearth of leadership we see in Ottawa on air quality issues.
Environment Minister Peter Kent is merely the person taking the heat until we all get busy with other things and recall only wistfully the days of Kyoto's promise of a better biosphere.
That's not to slight Kent, a former journalist with impressive credentials by any standard and a thoroughly decent person in every way.
Not incidentally, it was Kent's documentary "The Greenhouse Effect and Planet Earth" which aired on CBC's The Journal in January 1984, that got people talking about greenhouse gasses. "The greenhouse effect must be considered as the world's greatest environmental concern," Kent told surprised Canadian and American viewers. How things have changed!
If I were less naïve, I'd say Kent was chosen to lead the environment portfolio because of his personal character and outstanding courage as a combat journalist in the Vietnam War and other wars since.
How could anybody politically attack him? Seriously, the man is a hero.
If only the Conservatives had chosen someone else for the position of minister of the environment. Then environmentalists could tar and feather away to their heart's delight, without any remorse whatsoever. What a wonderful world it would be. I'd be there -- we could do lunch!
But if Conservative strategists planned long in advance to play juvenile delinquent on Kyoto -- the only Canadian who could possibly make enviros feel guilty about going on the attack would be Kent. Dang him for being so nice -- and so accomplished!
Where is all this leading if we refuse to hold MP Peter Kent's feet to the fire? Nowhere!
We -- those who breathe air on this planet -- need a new agreement. We need a binding international air-quality agreement so that environmentally wishy-washy governments can't just wash-out any time they like, because it may require effort to actually execute an agreed upon plan.
Apparently, solving the CO2 problem was too big of an undertaking for our Conservative government. So, let's give Ottawa a problem to solve that should be within its capabilities, one that will address airborne emissions and one that will help to make the air far less toxic than it is today. And, if Conservatives can't execute that play properly -- we vote them out of office at the very next election.
Why not? They work for us, remember? We decide who gets to ride in the limo, not them.
Toxic gasses other than CO2: Think about that for a minute. Some of the most horrific airborne carcinogens and other highly toxic gasses exist as emissions on every continent.
I have written (and quoted from the Common Language Project, a nonprofit journalism organization) previously in the Huffington Post that 410,000 people die per year in China from exposure to toxic emissions. Over four years that's 1.6 million deaths in China alone. Carbon dioxide is not the only pollution they are dying from.
Our environment minister could take a page from former president Bill Clinton's book and have a small sign made for his desk: "It's the other gasses, stupid!" Here is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) original airborne pollutant list and six common airborne pollutants.
On a positive note, every one of these killer emissions is well-known -- there is no uncertainty this time and avoiding responsibilities by politicians will no longer be an option. This science is already done! No need for a climate debate -- this will be a short but simple life vs. death debate.
We already have enough information and technology available to begin saving thousands of lives per year -- on every continent.
This time, let's get it right. Just be ready to make your point at the ballot box!
]]>As China Goes Green What Is Canada Waiting for?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.11509792011-12-17T06:35:34-05:002012-02-16T05:12:01-05:00John Brian Shannonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-brian-shannon/
It says everything about China that a nation of 1.5 billion people enjoying a rapidly growing economy chooses to spend unimaginably large sums of money to green-tech it's industry -- even as many competing domestic interests vie for government revenue.
Beijing residents rarely see the sky these days due to constant smog caused by coal-fired power plants, industrial pollution, transportation and construction sectors. Many cities in China are finding themselves completely blanketed by thick, particulate-laden clouds. At a certain point, smog begins to affect worker attendance and productivity rates -- which affects the corporate bottom line.
According to CLPmag.org: "It has been estimated that 410,000 Chinese die as a result of pollution each year." That's every year, folks.
It is a vicious circle. High pollution levels induce worker ailments, which lower productivity, resulting in lower profits. This causes companies to demand the government apply stricter environmental standards. Company directors are beginning to recognize the costs of inaction are much higher than the cost of environmental action.
China is now the largest producer of solar panels in the world, having surpassed the U.S. in late 2011. A smaller percentage of those panels are available for export as they are being redirected for domestic use as a way to taper the need for more coal-burning power plants.
However, on account of the staggering demand for electricity caused by rapid growth in China, completion of one coal-fired electrical power generation station per week continues and has been the case since 2008. One must also keep in mind this significant number; for each tonne of coal burned, around 2.4 tonnes of CO2 is created.
Of particular interest to the Chinese government these days is the cost of constructing 100 megawatts of electricity generation -- enough to power 62,000 homes -- using the following methods:
1) A Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) solar power plant -- which cost around $700 million in 2010, but are steadily dropping in price. Fuel cost for the sun to power those curved mirrors is zero. CSP's are noted for producing solar power 24 hours per day, storing the heat generated in vast underground pools of molten salt. After manufacture and construction, all emissions are zero. They are low maintenance.
Note: A 100 MW CSP power plant saves the environment 164,000 tons of CO2 per year!
2) A Photovoltaic (PV) solar power plant -- generally cost around $300 million with prices dropping almost monthly. Fuel cost for the sun to power those solar modules is zero. After manufacture and construction, all emissions are zero. Very low maintenance.
Note: A 100 MW PV power plant saves the environment 164,000 tons of CO2 per year!
A coal-fired power plant -- cost about $250 million and that price is rising yearly as expensive environmental technology is added to improve air quality. Constant maintenance is a factor with coal-fired power plants.
In the coal power plant scenario, the construction cost is only one factor out of many high costs to be borne by the plant operator and ultimately passed on to the consumer.
At the end of 2010, China operated 620 coal-fired power plants burning over three billion tons of coal per year. That's a lot of CO2, sulphur dioxide, nitrous oxide, airborne mercury, other toxins and particulate. After manufacture and construction, just the CO2 emissions only amount to 7.2 billion tonnes -- every year.
And, except for nitrous oxide (due to an aggressive and successful Chinese government program to drastically reduce NOx levels) all those numbers will double by 2020.
Then there is the fuel equation: in China, coal costs 815 yuan ($125) a tonne and it burns over three billion tonnes per year to total $375 billion annually. Rail and shipping costs are extra -- which represent a substantial amount of money alone. Some of China's coal supply comes all the way from western Canada and the U.S.!
Significantly, those numbers are expected to more than double by 2020. That is a lot of money to spend year in and year out, even for the world's number one economic performer.
Which brings us right back to 410,000 deaths per year in China due to the environmental degradation of the air, water, land and even food. Is it any wonder that China is more determined than any country to pursue green-tech solutions to improve it's environment?
In first-world nations, delivering on the environmental front is seen to be one step up from receiving a Cub Scout badge.
In China, delivering on the environmental front means saving tens of thousands of lives every year along with accumulating healthcare savings.
Is it any wonder that China's government has displayed such a high level of interest in promoting a green energy policy?
China's government has realized the importance of clean energy to the very survival and health of many thousands of citizens per year and the economy. Although late entering the game, China is now making huge strides to properly address it's environmental challenges.
There is nothing stopping Canada from doing the same -- except ourselves.]]>Coal Gets Less Down and Dirtytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.11544722011-12-16T17:20:56-05:002012-02-15T05:12:01-05:00John Brian Shannonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-brian-shannon/
What? You heard right. Because environmental groups railed against the coal industry for years, substantial research was devoted to extracting high-quality fuels and other products from coal and they have succeeded spectacularly.
Rather than use coal in the most egregious way possible by burning it and sending the entire problem up the chimney to land in the next state or country, it turns out that raw coal can be broken down into hundreds of high-quality, synthetic-oil products.
It merely requires the right process. Who knew?
Since the advent of high and sustained petroleum prices, a way forward for high-tech coal has existed.
A good example of this is coal-based diesel fuel derived from "Coal to Liquid" (CTL) technology which charts 100% lower sulfur content when compared to petroleum-based diesel fuel and in the case of carbon monoxide content up to 85% lower.
"Converting coal to a liquid fuel (CTL)--a process referred to as coal liquefaction - allows coal to be utilized as an alternative to oil. There are two different methods for converting coal into liquid fuels:
1) Direct liquefaction works by dissolving the coal in a solvent at high temperature and pressure. This process is highly efficient, but the liquid products require further refining to achieve high grade fuel characteristics.
2) Indirect liquefaction gasifies the coal to form a 'syngas' (a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide). The syngas is then condensed over a catalyst--the 'Fischer-Tropsch' process--to produce high quality, ultra-clean products.
An array of products can be made via these processes - ultra-clean petroleum and diesel, as well as synthetic waxes, lubricants, chemical feedstocks, and alternative liquid fuels such as methanol and dimethyl ether (DME)." Source: Alliance for Synthetic Fuels in Europe
And here is a great working example of this technology:
"South Africa has been producing coal-derived fuels since 1955... Not only are CTL fuels used in cars and other vehicles, South Africa's energy company Sasol CTL fuels also have approval to be utilized in commercial jets. Currently around 30% of the country's gasoline and diesel needs are produced from indigenous coal. The total capacity of the South African CTL operations now stands in excess of 160,000 barrels per day.
CTL is particularly suited to countries that rely heavily on oil imports and that have large domestic reserves of coal. There are a number of CTL projects around the world at various stages of development. Liquid fuels from coal can be delivered from an existing pump at a filling station via existing distribution infrastructure and used, without modification, in the current vehicle fleet." ---- World Coal Association
North America has the largest coal reserves in the world. To illustrate the full extent of coal reserves at present usage rates, coal would last North America for 118 years. That's how much proven coal resource is lying on the surface or buried at reachable depths in our own continent. Added to that, new coalfields are still being discovered in North America.
Adopting such a plan wouldn't lower total CO2 emissions significantly--as carbon dioxide is merely the by-product of any fossil-fuel combustion process. CO2 is here to stay and as far as consumers are concerned, only by employing conservation in our daily routines can we lessen our carbon dioxide footprint for the foreseeable future.
What switching to CTL will do however, is dramatically reduce toxic gases like sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxides, carbon monoxide, and other trace but highly toxic gases by switching to synthetic fuels derived from ultra-clean Coal To Liquid technology.
This equation is simple, use a clean fuel to get a clean burn.
Rather than allow an industry to decline on account of toxic fallout caused by burning dirty raw coal, why not transform the coal industry into the cleanest fuel provider on the continent? This is within the realm of possibility if we employ our best technology.
It is an environmental success story just waiting to occur. What it will take for this to become reality is broad public support, commitment of environmental groups and dedicated legislators.
The North American 'Coal To Liquid' industry could allow us to say goodbye to foreign oil and give us the ability to burn a clean, synthetic fuel in our vehicles and power plants.
It's not the entire environmental solution - but it would be one great step in the right direction.
]]>
