TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Ottawa Carbon Plan to rely on technology that pumps carbon emissions into the ground
Pages (2): [1] 2 »
Ottawa Carbon Plan to rely on technology that pumps carbon emissions into the ground
| quote: |
Ottawa's carbon plan jumps gun, critics say Mar 11, 2008 04:30 AM The federal government is relying too heavily on unproven technology as part of its efforts to fight climate change, critics are warning. "We need an independent assessment on something of this magnitude," said Ken Ogilvie, head of Pollution Probe. Green Leader Elizabeth May said the Tories are relying on the promise of carbon sequestration as if it were a "future magic silver bullet." Ogilvie and May were commenting on a federal plan to get Canadian industry to start pumping its pollutants deep into the ground as part of the effort to fight climate change. The Conservative plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions weighs heavily on Alberta's oil sands and promises to put an end to "dirty coal-fired power plants" by 2012. Oil sands projects launched in 2012 or later must either capture and store emissions in underground rock formations or find another method of cutting the equivalent greenhouse gases. Environment Canada projects that its regulations on industry, the source of half the country's emissions, will cut greenhouse gases by 165 megatonnes. Combined with other federal and provincial measures, the department estimates Canada will have cut its emissions to 21 per cent below 2006 levels by 2020. "Today we're coming forward with the details to help us get the job done," Environment Minister John Baird said yesterday. "Industry is going to do their part and we've got a series of other initiatives that we're committed to. We will deliver on the 20 per cent absolute reduction." Ogilvie urged caution. "We need an independent assessment on something of this magnitude. You wouldn't allow someone to bury radioactive waste without an independent assessment, but here we're also playing with a very large store of carbon. We just don't declare things safe unless they're proven to be safe." Baird's announcement is actually weaker in some ways than the original climate change plan unveiled last April, said John Bennett of ClimateforChange. Industry officials reacted calmly to yesterday's announcement, and promised to work with the federal and provincial governments to cut greenhouse gas emissions. They noted, though, that what Baird released amounts only to more guidelines, not the detailed draft regulations that were anticipated. "There are still a couple of unanswered questions," said Trevor Harris, a spokesperson for U.S. Steel Canada in Hamilton. They include details such as what emission limits the steelmaker might face. The federal document states Alberta's oil sands producers will be required to meet different emission limits � labelled "tough, tougher and toughest" � depending on whether their production start-up date is before 2004, from 2004 to 2011, or 2012 or later. The general rules for the first two categories are clear, but what the announcement means for post-2012 plants "is a question we're still trying to answer. It's not entirely clear," said Pierre Alvarez, president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, in Calgary. For new projects, the announcement "is not sufficient to base final decisions on," Alvarez said. Baird announced a year ago that existing industrial polluters would have to cut the intensity of their emissions by 18 per cent in 2010, and 2 per cent each following year. He added to that yesterday, saying that plants built from 2004 to 2011 must meet an unspecified "cleaner fuel standard." The so-called "toughest" rules are reserved for those facilities built in 2012 or later. Baird envisages networks of pipelines collecting carbon dioxide from electricity plants, oil excavation sites and other operations and piping it deep underground. Only one such project is currently on the drawing board, in Saskatchewan, but Baird hopes to have a "mass scale" sequestration system in place in the next 12 years. "This will be one of the most massive environmental infrastructure projects" in Canadian history, he told reporters, adding that industry, not taxpayers, would carry the financial burden. Ontario and Quebec fired off a joint statement last night expressing disappointment with the government rules, particularly that there was little recognition for those companies that already cut greenhouse gases between 1990 � the universal baseline for tracking emissions reductions � and 2006. Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach stuck to his province's standard line that natural resources are the domain of the provincial government, not Ottawa. The government regulations allow industry to offset some immediate action by purchasing emissions credits on a domestic trading system at $15 per tonne. It's estimated that will rise to $65 per tonne of emissions by 2018, an escalating incentive to go green. Businesses can also pay $15 a tonne into a technology fund that will be used to find new ways to cut emissions or contribute to green projects in developing countries to offset their emissions burden. Some of the costs will be passed on to consumers, the government said. NDP Leader Jack Layton dismissed the government's announcement and said its new rules are effectively giving industry a licence to continue polluting. Meanwhile, the Tories survived a confidence motion on the issue of the environment last night. The NDP motion declared the Commons no longer has confidence in the government because of its failure to "live up to Canada's international climate change agreements." But in a calculated move to avoid an election, only a handful of Liberals endorsed the motion and it was defeated 121 to 84. http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/332108 |
Having large gas repositories under ground is not a big problem, considering we have them now, and mine them (natural gas). The problem is that it takes a tremendous amount of energy to capture, separate and then pump the C02 underground. So, to 'save' the planet from co2, you are actually using WAY MORE energy. Where does this energy come from? Well coal plants and oil sands. It's a huge round circle jerk drummed up by environmentalists.
btw - i already posted the article here:
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...12&pagenumber=4
I don't have the time to find the article right now, but there exists and interesting article about carbon sequestration and how it is used in undersea oil/natural gas mining by a Scandanavian firm (I believe Norwegian) to aid in pressurizing the wells.
In this scenario the company is using the carbon generated in the mining application to reduce its costs going forward by making it easier to extract the oil/natural gas, thereby lowering both its costs and emmissions.
So at least in one scenario, the idea of carbon sequestration is working, which is why I feel the Canadian governemnt is looking at the idea. Just a tidbit for those of you actually interested in GHG (greenhouse gas) emmission reduction.
Cheers.
P.S. - If I find the article later today, I'll be sure to post it.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by The Ear I don't have the time to find the article right now, but there exists and interesting article about carbon sequestration and how it is used in undersea oil/natural gas mining by a Scandanavian firm (I believe Norwegian) to aid in pressurizing the wells. In this scenario the company is using the carbon generated in the mining application to reduce its costs going forward by making it easier to extract the oil/natural gas, thereby lowering both its costs and emmissions. So at least in one scenario, the idea of carbon sequestration is working, which is why I feel the Canadian governemnt is looking at the idea. Just a tidbit for those of you actually interested in GHG (greenhouse gas) emmission reduction. Cheers. P.S. - If I find the article later today, I'll be sure to post it. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by The Ear I don't have the time to find the article right now, but there exists and interesting article about carbon sequestration and how it is used in undersea oil/natural gas mining by a Scandanavian firm (I believe Norwegian) to aid in pressurizing the wells. In this scenario the company is using the carbon generated in the mining application to reduce its costs going forward by making it easier to extract the oil/natural gas, thereby lowering both its costs and emmissions. |
Still can't find the original article, but here are a few others I've come across while looking for it that pretty much convey the point of the original article.
| quote: |
| from Environmental Science and Technology online Large carbon sequestration project planned to enhance oil recovery Energy companies Statoil and Shell are planning to build a gas-fired power station in Norway and channel the CO2 emissions into offshore oil fields to enhance oil recovery. The partners claim it would be the biggest scheme of its type in the world. Under the plan announced in March, CO2 would be captured from an 860-MW gas-fired power plant to be built at Statoil�s Tjeldbergodden (Norway) methanol complex. CO2 emissions from the plant�2�2.5 million t-CO2/yr�would be piped to Shell�s Draugen oil field and to Statoil�s Heidrun oil field, both off the coast of Norway, and then injected into subsea reservoirs to force oil to the surface. (The operators currently use water for this purpose.) The companies say that this operation would increase energy production in Norway while lowering the country�s CO2 emissions. However, they also admit that their plan is technologically and commercially challenging and depends on substantial government funding and involvement. They estimate the project will cost $1.19�1.49 billion. If they secure all the necessary funding and approvals, construction of the power plant could start in 2010, with the first CO2 being delivered as early as 2011. Although Norwegian Environment Minister Helen Bjoernoy has praised the plan, she has not yet committed any funding. �This is a good example of industry responding constructively to political signals,� she said in a statement. �The Norwegian government has made it clear that carbon capture is a prerequisite for any new concessions to build gas-fired power stations.� The Statoil�Shell partnership comes at a time of heated political debate in Norway over whether to build gas-fired power plants. At present, the country generates almost all its electricity at hydropower plants, but little further expansion is possible. However, Norway is one of the world�s largest consumers of electricity and, with demand still growing, the government is looking for other energy sources that will find favor with its environmentally conscious population. Gas-fueled power linked to carbon sequestration is one such solution. Currently, Norway has no traditional gas-fired power plants. Some environmental groups, such as the Bellona Foundation, support this approach and have welcomed the Statoil proposal. Diana Wallis, a member of the Bellona Foundation and of the European Parliament, says that CO2 capture and storage offer great opportunities to reduce emissions. However, Truls Gulowsen of Greenpeace Norway points out that the overall balance of carbon emissions from the scheme will be higher because more oil will be produced and burned. Greenpeace is skeptical about CO2 capture projects in general. �We believe money is better spent unleashing the energy-efficiency potential, supporting renewable energy solutions, and implementing low-energy solutions,� Gulowsen says. Meanwhile, in the U.S., the Department of Energy released a series of reports in February claiming that the development of new CO2 capture and sequestration for enhanced oil recovery could more than quadruple U.S. domestic oil production. About 30 million t of CO2 is already used to boost oil recovery from onshore oil fields in Texas every year. �MARIA BURKE |
| quote: |
| from CICERO - Center for International Climate and Environmental Research-Oslo Statoil claims it could sequester all of Europe's CO2 emissions under North Sea Norway-based Statoil is projecting that all of Europe's carbon dioxide emissions could be stored in an undersea aquifer beneath its Sleipner platforms in the North Sea. The company would need to build the appropriate infrastructure in order to store greenhouse gases underneath the platforms, 200 miles off the Norwegian coast. The platform provides methane to countries throughout western mainland Europe and can export 20 million cubic meters of gas per day. Currently, it stores around 1 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually. "There are calculations that say it could handle all of Europe's CO2 emissions for several hundreds of years," said Statoil's Senior Vice President for the Environment Tor Fraeren. "It could all be handled by this reservoir. I hope that during these hundreds of years we could solve the CO2 problem in a more efficient way, but we have the potential here to store it." Sequestering carbon dioxide deep below the ground could cut global emissions by 20 to 40 percent between now and 2050, according to a U.N. commissioned report. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - the world scientific authority on global warming - commissioned the report in 2003. The report found that between 220 and 2,200 billion metric tons of CO2 could be economically stored underground in geological structures such as empty oil and gas fields and also in deep oceans between now and 2100. The process could cost anywhere from $15 to $75 per metric ton of CO2, the IPCC estimated. U.K. officials already are dedicating funds to CO2 sequestration, having announced last year that they will spend �25 million on a carbon sequestration plan in the North Sea to help mitigate the effects of climate change (Greenwire, Sept. 20, 2005). "We are also modeling how the CO2 behaves in the long term," Fraeren said. "What we are seeing in that modeling is that it will stay down there, and it will be safely stored there for generations" (BBC News, Feb. 21). |
So instead of reducing carbon emissions, we're just finding new places to put them. Nice.
No chance of this going wrong...
I've always said we need a space canon. Anything we don't like or need, shoot into space, at the sun!
Garbage, CO2, the homeless, Stefan Dion.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Orko I've always said we need a space canon. Anything we don't like or need, shoot into space, at the sun! Garbage, CO2, the homeless, Stefan Dion. |
| quote: |
| We believe money is better spent unleashing the energy-efficiency potential, supporting renewable energy solutions, and implementing low-energy solutions |
orko you're dismissing this idea way too fast, Alberta is working on nuclear power plants, their energies could be used instead of fossil fuels to sequestre co2.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by malek orko you're dismissing this idea way too fast, Alberta is working on nuclear power plants, their energies could be used instead of fossil fuels to sequestre co2. |
gov't = shinra 
| quote: |
| I don't understand why Dalton McFuckTard is openeing a coal-fired power plant in my backyard. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Orko I've always said we need a space canon. Anything we don't like or need, shoot into space, at the sun! Garbage, CO2, the homeless, Stefan Dion. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Search&Rescue opening a new coal-fired power plant? in Toronto? what plant are you talking about? and does anyone have any message for the minister of energy? he's coming to take a tour of our project site this thursday yes, we are building a power plant...a gas-fired power plant don't hate, i'm just an intern |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Search&Rescue opening a new coal-fired power plant? in Toronto? what plant are you talking about? and does anyone have any message for the minister of energy? he's coming to take a tour of our project site this thursday yes, we are building a power plant...a gas-fired power plant don't hate, i'm just an intern |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Orko Agreed, and I already thought of that. Honestly, I am just against the whole thing because I do not believe in man made global warming |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Dr. DAS I do! Why, in light of the energy shortage created by the Liberal government's shortsighted closing of coal-fired power stations without replacement facilities being built first, is there a moritorium on offshore wind turbines in Lake Ontario? |
| quote: |
Ontario to approve Great Lakes wind power Several offshore projects are waiting in the wings Jan 15, 2008 04:30 AM Tyler Hamilton Energy Reporter Ontario is preparing to lift a controversial moratorium on the development of offshore wind projects in the Great Lakes that has been in place for nearly 14 months, the Toronto Star has learned. A Ministry of Natural Resources official says the department is "getting ready" to make an announcement and that new minister Donna Cansfield is "anxious to demonstrate leadership in the area." Jamie Rilett, a spokesperson in Cansfield's office, confirmed that the ministry is currently revisiting the moratorium. He said a decision would be made "shortly." Industry sources also confirmed the moratorium's end is imminent. Offshore wind energy, while typically associated with ocean projects, offers significant opportunities in the Great Lakes. According to one study by Helimax Energy Inc., the strong and consistent winds typically over the lakes could generate up to 47,000 megawatts of clean electricity � nearly double Ontario's existing power capacity. The ministry put a halt to all offshore development in November 2006 to give the government more time to study the potential environmental impact of such projects on bats, butterflies, aquatic species and bird migration routes. But the moratorium caught some wind developers off guard, particularly those trying to raise money for their proposed projects. The wisdom of halting development was also called into question when it was discovered that some U.S. states, such as Ohio, were actively moving forward with offshore projects in Lake Erie despite the Ontario policy. The moratorium followed a protest against an offshore wind project near Leamington, Ont., in September 2006. Nearly 300 residents showed up to a council meeting to protest a 119-turbine project planned by developer Southpoint Wind Power. Council unanimously rejected Southpoint's proposal and urged the ministry to come up with guidelines that would help small communities evaluate offshore projects. "There were a number of serious concerns," said deputy mayor Robert Schmidt, explaining that many residents saw negative impacts on lake navigation, bird and butterfly migration, recreational boating and fishing. "The biggest issue to most residents was how it affected their view of the lake, which is really only the last natural view we have in our area." Schmidt said a number of offshore proposals still wait in the wings. "The majority of people aren't against the idea, as long as it's located in an area where it doesn't cause problems." Energy consultant Paul Bradley, manager of PJB Energy Solutions and former vice-president of generation at the Ontario Power Authority, said offshore projects hold great potential but are also a huge technical challenge. "They're all-or-nothing projects," he said. "You've got to collect all that power from each turbine, aggregate it, and then bring it in efficiently through an underwater cable." The best wind resources tend to be far from where power is consumed. One of the biggest challenges is to bring wind-generated energy to communities in southern Ontario without breaking the bank on building high voltage transmission lines, which cost about $3 million a kilometre to construct. Toronto Hydro Corp. has considered an offshore wind project in Lake Ontario near the Scarborough Bluffs. That wind farm would have a capacity of up to 200 megawatts. "In the general context of developing wind power in the province, (lifting the moratorium) would be a great step forward," said Joyce McLean, chair of the Canadian Wind Energy Association and Toronto Hydro's manager of green energy services. A more ambitious project by Trillium Power Energy Corp. would involve 140 turbines erected along a shallow stretch of Lake Ontario, about 15 kilometres offshore from Prince Edward County. The wind farm would have a capacity of 710 megawatts, the largest in Ontario. Wind energy is a major part of the McGuinty government's plan to double by 2025 the amount of electricity that comes from renewable resources. The Ministry of Energy announced last August it had directed the Ontario Power Authority to procure another 2,000 megawatts of renewable power, a large portion of which is expected to be generated from wind. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by malek orko you're dismissing this idea way too fast, Alberta is working on nuclear power plants, their energies could be used instead of fossil fuels to sequestre co2. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by malek me neither, but if its what it takes to shut the hippes up so I can drive my V8 in peace, so be it. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Ania_xox except the development process of most of these new technologies that will work to reduce CO2 emissions are EXTREMELY detrimental to the environment... reverse effect in the quest to conquer global warming... it's like an endless cycle |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by malek what is detrimental? I don't understand you. Everything we do, changes our environment, there's no way around it. If we can't assume that as human beings (and at the numbers we are now), we better just all kill ourselves and finish this off already. |
lol
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Ania_xox Just recently I was reading an article about an oil company in Alberta called Syncrude that is making overt and exaggerated attempts at showing the public that they are actively dedicated to reversing their ecological footprint. The biggest problem they pose is that their processes produce some kind of ... tar particles? (F*ck I read the article in french originally so I don't know how to translate this at the moment - des eclats bitumineux??? ) Anyway they are in the process of creating some kind of new technology that produces less of these "tar chips"... a technology that omits VAST amounts of carbon and is making the public and municipal government nervous. Furthermore... other nastiness produced by this new technology is dumped into waste ponds (some of which are so huge and nasty that they can be seen from a satellite) AND these waste ponds sometimes leak into nearby rivers/ponds. And freshwater is not something bountiful in Alberta. Damn it... I wish I could find the article. So relevant to this discussion. Anyway... blah blah blah... I'm just saying that it's a funny process... reverse effects than what is initially intended. And yes I know the whole "look at the big picture/long run" ... that's not how my mind works... immediate effects are all I see. And these ones suck lol |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Orko Same thought process as the tar sands them selves. 10 years ago, it was far too expensive to mine the oil out of the tar sands. But, since the price per barrel has risen so much, their cost effectiveness makes a lot more sense. |
"�clats" = fly sock might be the technical term, but chips, chippings, residues or pieces might also be equivalent.
www.granddictionnaire.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.