Harper government drops heavy oil processing from environmental review list

Harper government drops heavy oil processing from environmental review list

Building a diamond mine, expanding an oilsands mine, offshore exploration or an interprovincial bridge could soon require a federal environmental review under proposed additions and subtractions to the Harper government's new environmental rules.
But provincially regulated pipelines, facilities used to process the heavy oil from the oilsands, pulp and paper mills as well as chemical explosive plants are among those being deleted from a list of projects requiring federal environmental investigations prior to approval.
The proposed changes would be part of amended regulations for new environmental laws, adopted last July, which have already cancelled about 3,000 investigations, by removing the triggers that required the assessments and replacing them with the list of projects.
The proposal said that the government has started 17 assessments of different projects under the new 2012 environmental assessment law, and was not "significantly" expecting further changes to the total number of annual reviews.
Environment Minister Peter Kent has defended the legislation, proposed by the oil and gas industry, explaining that it allows the government to reduce duplication and focus federal resources on the projects that have the greatest environmental risks and impacts.
The latest proposed changes, now subject to a 30-day consultation period that began on April 20, would also delete groundwater extraction facilities, provincially regulated electrical transmission lines, a wide range of mining projects, as well as steel mills, metal smelters and pharmaceutical plants.
Isabelle Perrault, a spokeswoman for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency said "it is generally the view that these types of projects do not have a high potential to cause significant adverse environmental effects in areas of federal jurisdiction."
She also said the new laws adopted in July give the minister powers to require an environmental assessment if a proposed project is not on the list, but has high environmental risks in areas of federal jurisdiction.
Stephen Hazell, an Ottawa-based environmental lawyer who directed a government team that developed federal environmental regulations in the 1990s, said the list of projects added and subtracted did not make sense.
"It's really unfathomable," Hazell said in an interview. "How can you take heavy oil processing facilities off the list?"
Environmental assessments are meant to evaluate the impacts of new industrial projects, setting conditions that require proponents to mitigate potential damage and then proceed with development.
Hazell said it was positive to see some projects such as diamond mines as well as interprovincial bridges and tunnels added, but he added that the deletions opened up risks in other areas.

How to Sell Power from Electric Cars Back to the Grid: Scientific American

How to Sell Power from Electric Cars Back to the Grid: Scientific American

<Balancing supply and demand is one of the most important and challenging responsibilities of grid operators, said PJM's Kormos. The problem has become increasingly complex in recent years as fleets of new wind and solar power projects have come online, he added.
"In the future, we're looking at our grid and seeing a lot more renewables, but renewables only work when the weather allows -- when the wind blows and the sun shines," he said. "Rather than trying to match generation to load, as we have in the past, [V2G technology] lets us match load to generation."
PJM has amended its rules in recent years to allow smaller power projects, such as wind or solar installations and V2G technology, to participate in its power markets, he said.
Rather than interacting with the grid individually, the University of Delaware power stations aggregate the energy available in the 15 cars into a single available resource. Upon receiving a signal from PJM, the software then siphons power from all available cars until the required demand is met.
Although a number of the cars are operational as vehicles, they are not currently being commercialized in that regard. As they are already making a profit by integrating with the grid, future use as transportation can be seen as value-added, NRG Executive Vice President Denise Wilson said. The pilot project "demonstrates that EVs can provide both mobility and stationary power while helping to make the grid more resilient," she added.

a scientific discussion of the energy options for the future

February 12, 2013

a scientific discussion of the energy options for the future

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

David MacKay [1]
House of Lords Tuesday 13th January 2009 The public discussion of energy options tends to be intensely
emotional, polarized, mistrustful, and destructive. Every option is
strongly opposed: the public seem to be anti-wind, anti-coal,
anti-waste-to-energy, anti-tidal-barrage, anti-fuel-duty, and
anti-nuclear.
We can't be anti-everything! We need an energy plan that adds up.
But there's a lack of numeracy in the public discussion of energy.
Where people do use numbers, they select them to sound big, to make an
impression, and to score points in arguments, rather than to aid
thoughtful discussion.
My motivation in writing "Sustainable Energy - without the hot air"
(available both on paper, and for free in electronic form
[withouthotair.com]) is to promote constructive conversations about
energy, instead of the perpetual Punch and Judy show. I've tried to
write an honest, educational and fun book.[2] I hope the book will help
build a cross-party consensus in favour of urgently making an energy
plan that adds up.
"Sustainable Energy - without the hot air" presents
the numbers that are needed to answer these questions:
How huge are Britain's renewable resources, compared with our current
energy consumption?
How big do renewable energy facilities have to be, to make a
significant contribution?
How big would our energy consumption be if we adopted strong
efficiency measures?
Which efficiency measures offer big savings, and which offer only 5
or 10%?
Do new much-hyped technologies such as hydrogen or electric cars
reduce energy consumption, or do they actually make our energy
problem worse?
Wherever possible, I answer these questions from first principles. To
make the numbers comparable and comprehensible, I express all energies
and powers in a single set of units: energies are measured in
kilowatt-hours (the same units that you see on your electricity bills
and gas bills, costing 10p a pop), and powers are measured in
kilowatt-hours per day, per person. Everyday choices involve small
numbers of kWh per day. If I have a hot bath, I use 5 kWh of
energy. If I were to drive from Cambridge to London and back in an
average car, I would use 130 kWh.
Let me give you three examples of what we learn when we work out
the numbers. First, switching off the phone charger.
I think I first heard this idea from the BBC, the idea that one of the
top ten things you should do to make a difference to your energy
consumption is to switch off the phone charger when you are not using
it. The truth is that leaving the phone charger switched on uses
about 0.01 kWh per day. This means that switching the phone charger
off for a whole day saves the same energy as is used in driving an
average car for one second. Switching off phone chargers is like
bailing the Titanic with a teaspoon.
Second, hydrogen for transport:
all hydrogen-powered transport prototypes _increase_ energy consumption
compared to ordinary fossil-cars; whereas electric vehicles are
significantly more energy efficient than fossil-cars. So hydrogen vehicles
make our energy problem worse, and electric vehicles make it better.
Third, here are the numbers for wave power. We often hear that
Britain has a "huge" wave resource. But how
huge is the technical potential of wave power compared with our huge
consumption? If 1000 km of Atlantic coastline were completely filled
with Pelamis wave machines, the average power delivered would be 2.4
kWh per day per person. That is indeed a huge amount of power: but today's
British total energy consumption is on average 125 kWh per day per
person. (That's for all forms of energy: electrical, transport,
heating - not just electricity.)
So a country-sized wave farm would deliver an average power equal to
2% of our current power consumption. I'm not saying we should not
invest in wave power. But we need to know the truth about the scale of
renewables required.
This message applies, sadly, to almost all renewables in Britain
(wind, tide, photovoltaics, hydroelectricity, biofuels, for example): to
make a substantial contribution, renewable facilities have to be
country-sized.
And this is perhaps the most important message: the scale of action
required to put in place a sustainable energy solution. Even if we
imagine strong efficiency measures and smart technology-switches that
halved our energy consumption [from 125 kWh per day per person to 60
kWh per day] (which would be lower than the per-capita consumption of any
developed country today), we should not kid ourselves about the
challenge of supplying 60 kWh per day without fossil fuels. Among the
low-carbon energy supply options, the three with the biggest potential
are wind power, nuclear power, and concentrating solar power in other
peoples' deserts. And here is the scale that is required if (for
simplicity) we wanted to get one third from each of these sources: we
would have to build wind farms with an area equal to the area of
Wales; we would have to build 50 Sizewells of nuclear power; and we
would need solar power stations in deserts covering an area twice the
size of Greater London.
Of course I'm not recommending this particular mix of options; there
are many mixes that add up; and a more detailed story would discuss
other technologies such as 'clean coal' with carbon capture and
storage (as yet, unproven); and energy storage systems to cope with
fluctuations of supply and demand.
Whatever mix you choose, if it adds up, we have a very large building task.
The simple wind/nuclear/solar mix I just mentioned would involve
roughly a hundred-fold increase in wind power over 2006 [3], and a
five-fold increase in nuclear power [4]; the solar power in deserts
would require new long-distance cables connecting the Sahara to
Surrey, with a capacity 25 times greater than the existing
England-France interconnector.
It's not going to be easy to make a energy plan that adds up; but it is
possible. We need to get building.

Notes:
1. David MacKay is Professor of Natural Philosophy in the Department of
Physics at the University of Cambridge. "Sustainable Energy -
without the hot air" (382 pages, full colour) is published by UIT
Cambridge. www.withouthotair.com
2. Of course, I'm not the first to present these numbers. All these facts
have been laid out, for example, by the Royal Commission on
Environmental Pollution in its 22nd report, "Energy - The Changing
Climate" (2000), and by the Committee on Climate Change in its report
"Building a low-carbon economy" (December 2008).
3. In 2006, all wind farms in Britain delivered an average power of
0.2 kWh per day per person.
4. In the year ending March 2008, Sizewell delivered
9.8 TWh per year, which is roughly 0.4 kWh per day per person.
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
David J.C. MacKay mackay@mrao.cam.ac.uk
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/mackay/
Cavendish Laboratory, 19 J J Thomson Ave, Cambridge CB3 0HE. U.K.
(01223) 339852 | fax: 337356 | home: 740511 international: +44 1223

potential solution to the challenges of carbon sequestration

Mother Nature: The Master Innovator (As Usual)
The discovery of a cheap and widely available catalyst is promising especially due to the fact that the end product, CaCO3, is chemically inert. In terms of cost, nickel could provide an alternative to the Carbonic Anyhdrase enzyme at a thousandth of the price. The estimated cost incurred per ton of CO2 captured is cited at ~$7.9, considering the recycling potential and low-cost of nickel. Additionally, the opportunity to sell the CaCO3 output represents potential for entirely offsetting the costs of the sequestration system. CaCO3, a chalky substance, is used in industries such as paper/pulp, plastics, cement, and paint. These industries are estimated to consume over 85 million tons of CaCO3 per year, resulting in markets that bring in roughly $650 billion/yr. Other proposed methods for capturing industrially produced CO2 include the underground storage of CO2 in expired oil pockets or in deep ocean sites. The cost of transportation of CO2 to these sites, alongside the measures likely to be taken to ensure that leakage won’t occur, represent downsides to these methods that won’t be present were CO2 to be converted to CaCO3.
Because this technology is low-cost and could be utilized without much re-structuring of the industrial settings in which it would be useful, the political and economic feasibilities of its widespread deployment seem reasonable. The buzz all over scientific columns in the last couple of weeks has been calling this finding ‘a potential solution to the challenges of carbon sequestration’. Will it be? Only time will tell. It is, however, important to remember that  these technologies are still bandaids for our dirty energy economy, and thus shouldn’t be adopted in lieu of clean energy advancements. But considering how far off we are from 100% clean energy, news regarding promising new sequestration techniques is good news.

China's Clean Energy Investment Puts America to Shame

China's Clean Energy Investment Puts America to Shame

We neglect to account for externalities such as the cost of war ships keeping the Suez Canal open when Iran threatens to close it, oil spills inland and offshore, the wars in Iraq, and the limited liability given to the operators' nuclear plants. If Fukishima happened here, it would be no problem for U.S. companies -- Uncle Sam would pick up the tab.
In China, the energy debate is very different. When China sees its imports of coal rising and dependence on foreign oil growing, it springs into action. Not by screaming, "Drill, baby, drill," but by investing billions of dollars in home-grown energy sources. Yes, I'm talking about clean, renewable energy, and China's investment in these energy sources make U.S. subsidies look like the half-hearted effort they are.
Building a homegrown industry
China has put tens (maybe hundreds) of billions of dollars into building a renewable manufacturing industry, and it started long before the U.S. even noticed the emergence of wind and solar power. Sinovel Wind Group was founded in 2005 and quickly became the third largest wind turbine manufacturer behind Vestas and General Electric (NYSE: GE  ) . It has plans to surpass these companies within the next two years and is fueled by funding from Chinese state-owned banks. Goldwind, Guodian, and Ming Yang have also sprouted up in China, pushing European and American companies out of the wind market.

In solar, Chinese dominance is even more alarming. In 2008, Q.Cells, Sharp Electronics, and First Solar (NASDAQ: FSLR  ) were the top three solar manufacturers, followed by China's Suntech Power in fourth place. Today, Q.Cells has been through bankruptcy and is owned by South Korean conglomerate Hanwha Group, Sharp is in financial trouble, and China is home to the top nine solar producers, according to the Renewables 2012 Global Status Report. Again, top producers Suntech, Yingli Green Energy (NYSE: YGE  ) , Trina Solar (NYSE: TSL  ) , LDK Solar (NYSE: LDK  ) , and dozens of others have used cheap, easy money from Chinese state-run banks to bankrupt the rest of the world's solar industry and claim it as its own.  

Where the U.S. saw risk in clean energy manufacturing (see Solyndra), China saw opportunity.
Putting their money where the future is
Unlike the U.S., China also has a national goal when it comes to solar power, the fastest-growing renewable energy source. It plans to install 40 GW of solar by 2015, 30% more than what was installed globally in 2012. To put that number into some context, solar installations in the U.S. grew 76% last year and still reached only 3.3 GW. We would have to nearly double solar installations annually to reach 40 GW in installations over the next three years.
When you put these figures into dollars, China's green energy dominance is even more staggering. Keep in mind that the U.S. economy is more than twice as big as China's  when you read the following data from a report released by Pew Charitable Trusts and Bloomberg New Energy Finance earlier this week.

• China invested $65 billion into wind, solar, and other renewable energy sources in 2012, 20% growth from 2011. The U.S. invested $35.6 billion, down 37% from a year earlier. As a percentage of the economy, China's investment in clean energy is nearly four times as large as that of the United States.  
• Worldwide, clean energy investments fell by 11% in 2012 to $269 billion while investments in Asia grew 16% to $101 billion.  
• China accounted for 30% of all clean energy investment by G-20 countries in 2012.

There are a few reasons China is so gung-ho about green energy right now. Chinese officials see wind and solar as emerging industries they can dominate with a large investment early in the business cycle. Considering the number of bankruptcies in solar over the past two years and the almost unanimous blame management puts on China, the strategy is working.
There's also an environmental aspect to China's pursuit of clean energy. This view of Shanghai covered in smog is an increasingly common occurrence over large parts of China:

Source: Wikimedia. 

Earlier this year, Beijing residents were told to stay inside as smog covered the city, and the U.S. Embassy said pollution monitors had air quality at hazardous levels in 19 of 25 days. China has fueled much of its economic growth with coal, and the rapid growth of the middle class has congested the country with gas-burning vehicles. Clean energy can offset some of those pollutants.

Dominating the future of energy
There are a fleeting few U.S. companies that can now stake claim to a significant piece of the clean energy future. First Solar (NASDAQ: FSLR  ) and SunPower (NASDAQ: SPWR  ) appear to be winners in the solar industry, and they've even turned to China as a potential customer for their products. But they still have to fight off fierce competition from China. General Electric is using its sheer size to stay afloat in wind power and is still investing in solar. The sad truth is that most of the other large manufacturers in wind and solar have fallen by the wayside.

China has made a concerted effort to dominate the future of clean energy, and by the look of it, China is winning. Until the U.S. decides that renewable energy is a necessary part of our economic future and creates the policy and infrastructure necessary for it to thrive, China will continue to outspend us. To me, that's a shame.
A solar stock to keep an eye on
Investors and bystanders alike have been shocked by First Solar's precipitous drop over the past two years. The stakes have never been higher for the company: Is it done for good, or ready for a rebound? If you're looking for continuing updates and guidance on the company whenever news breaks, The Motley Fool has created a brand-new report that details every must know side of this stock. To get started, simply click here now.

Inexpensive Solar Cell Coating May Lead To Big Increases In Solar Cell Efficiency, 1 Photon Knocks Loose 2 Electrons | CleanTechnica

Inexpensive Solar Cell Coating May Lead To Big Increases In Solar Cell Efficiency, 1 Photon Knocks Loose 2 Electrons | CleanTechnica

For the past couple of decades, the Shockley-Queisser efficiency limit of 34% has been considered the maximum that a single optimized semiconductor junction could hope to achieve. But according to the press release from MIT, this limit could soon be shown to be irrelevant.
The principle behind the new technique has been understood since the 1960s, but had until now not successfully been put into practice, according to Marc Baldo, a professor of electrical engineering at MIT. The research team “was able, for the first time, to perform a successful ‘proof of principle’ of the idea, which is known as singlet exciton fission,” the press release stated.
Typically, in a photovoltaic (PV) cell, one photon only knocks loose one electron, and that loose electron is then harnessed to provide the electrical current. Whatever energy remains of the photon after knocking loose the electron is then lost as waste heat. But now, with the new technique, the extra energy is used to knock loose two electrons instead of just one, which also reduces waste heat. This makes for a much more efficient system.