China's dependency on Coal

The Green Blog from the NY Times discusses China's heavy reliance on coal.

"the single most important issue is how to get China to deploy carbon capture and storage into its coal sector.”

"the technology is still in its infancy, with only a handful of projects up and running globally, and expensive to deploy. Who will cover the cost?"

"China, which counts itself as a developing country, say the industrialized world should underwrite such investments. But will Western countries be willing? To what extent should China be responsible for curbing its own coal emissions, and how much should the industrialized world contribute?"

China will probably consider carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology but is waiting for the United States, Canada and other Western nations to prove their commitment to this technology. Like many technologies for climate change mitigation, there are big costs and lots of uncertainties. Given China's coal dependent economy, there is a lot of opportunity for CCS. I think Canada and China should partner up and run a trial CCS initiative to evaluate its efficacy. This could showcase its potential and attract other nations.

A cleaner, cheaper, more useful type of clean coal...

Imagine if all you needed to resurface your driveway was a little sea water and some carbon dioxide? And what if I told you that by resurfacing your driveway you would be taking advantage of carbon free energy and even creating some relatively clean water?

Bollocks, you'd probably say (and I would hope in an English accent). Well, there's a company in the United States that is hoping to prove you wrong. Based off the naturally occurring process corals use to make their bones, some very innovative entrepreneurs at Calera have developed a method to take carbon emissions from gas and coal-fired plants and mixing it with ocean water to create calcium carbonate. Calcium carbonate -- the substance making up coral bones -- can be turned into cement or used as aggregate in construction projects.

There are plenty of small innovative firms out there with cool ideas like this, but Calera could very well make a significant impact. It has already attracted attention from Thomas Friedman, author of The World is Flat and columnist for the New York Times, and more importantly, significant investment from a major engineering firm confident enough to build several Calera plants.

There are hopes that this process will actually lead to a "clean coal" future, something that is heavily criticized by many because of the extraordinary expense and excruciatingly slow development of mainstream carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies. By capturing the carbon emissions from coal and gas plants, it essentially makes them carbon emissions-free. Moreover, the carbon is stored in useful products like cement, as opposed to being pumped in large quantities underground.

A wonderful bonus that comes out of this process is relatively clean water. The salt water used loses about 80% of the properties that make it unsafe to drink, which happens to make it much easier to convert to fresh water using desalination as less energy is required to filter the water.

Considering how much coal is being used to power the world's electricity systems, this process, if actually scalable in an economic fashion, could change the whole playing field. The company is touting the potential of this technology in China and India, which are developing coal plants at a rate of nearly one a day. And since major construction projects and fresh water crises are bound to define much of each country's upcoming future, the technology is especially attractive.

But even if all the potential of this technology does come to fruition, it won't be perfect. Coal is a finite resource. Coal plants, even without carbon emissions, still have significant impacts on our lives. They emit dangerously high levels of toxic chemicals into the air -- even with scrubber technologies -- causing severe health complications. And coal mining is among the most environmentally devastating processes known to our history. I mean, how many other industries can say that they blow the tops off mountains to get what they want?

The trouble is, coal is going to be used excessively whether we like it or not.

No energy technology is perfect, but the Calera technology could at least make a significant dent as we try to lower carbon emissions. It's amazing what we can learn from nature. One hopes we don't kill too much of it off as we do.    

Is the environmental attack on the Oil Sands going to make any headway?

A recent article in the Globe and Mail signalled that the fate of the hyper-destructive and very profitable Alberta Oil Sands might well be tipping in favour of those opposed to them. The article outlines the role the Norwegian state-owned oil company, Statoil, who has invested over $2B in the Oil Sands, is having in the country's federal elections.

Norway, from an international standpoint, is widely regarded as a friendly, progressive country, similar to its counterparts in Scandinavia. And even its historic oil industry -- Norway is the world's first country to employ a one-way CCS project -- is among the more respectable groups in the sector.

So being involved in the Oil Sands is sure to raise some eyebrows and rustle some feathers. The negativity of Statoil's involvement in the Oil Sands is so heavy that it could play a major role in the federal election as candidates from nearly every party are promising to carefully examine the role of Norway's state-owned company. One prominent leader is already offering to create environmental laws that would make it impossible for Statoil to even come close to getting involved with anything like the Oil Sands.

Norway is not the only one rethinking its involvement in Alberta. Even the Chinese government, whose state-owned oil enterprise is heavily invested in the Oil Sands, is looking at what's going on. The article also mentions that several Chinese journalists are on their way to take a tour of the areas surrounding the Oil Sands to witness the environmental destruction of the place.

But before we start to think that the tables have really turned and the Oil Sands are on their way to being shut down, let's just put a few things in perspective.

Statoil is state-owned. Generally speaking, state-owned energy companies have a lot more to answer to than their purely private contenders, especially in a country like Norway. The Chinese, although to a much lesser degree of social & environmental responsibility, are also state-owned. The downside is that the majority of investment in the Oil Sands is private. Private companies often, but not always, answer only to their shareholders who often, but again, not always, only want to make more money. The Oil Sands make money. Lots of it.

Secondly, keep in mind that it is election time in Norway. For those of us who have followed election campaigns, they are filled with promises. Often, these promises are politically charged and do not always come to fruition. Considering the length of time it would take to get out of there and the investment losses, the task of pulling out would be very difficult. I would not be surprised if this issue slowly fades away after election fever winds away.

Thirdly, and almost in summation, the Oil Sands are very, very lucrative. They are profitable for those involved and beneficiaries range from international partners (the United States) to domestic governments (Alberta). The Alberta government has certainly signalled more than once how little it really cares about the environmental consequences and its internal bureaucratic systems (see Andrew NikiForuk's Tar Sands) are far from being pro-environment. Furthermore, the Conservative stronghold of Alberta is almost insurmountable and if the current policies of both the Alberta and Federal Conservative government's is any indication, these policies are not going to change quickly.

And I wouldn't put too much money on Obama making a big deal about the Oil Sands anytime soon. His hands are full with his health care reform plan and any fight with the Oil Sands would surely have short-term economic consequences, which is the last thing he needs as the U.S. economy is starting to recover. Right now, he has bigger, more homegrown fish to fry.

I don't mean to sound like a pessimist, but the Oil Sands are big. Very big. I do not deny the environmental, economic and health damages due to the Oil Sands, but tackling such a beast is so complex and in my opinion, nearly impossible. However, I would urge those already fighting to shut down the Oil Sands to keep on doing what they're doing, as anything helps in the struggle against them.

But in some ways we need to be a bit realistic and make the best out of an already awful situation by looking more into conservation strategies, renewable energy markets and to pressure our elected officials. Perhaps we could at least reduce the demand for oil in this country. But really fighting the Oil Sands seems like a steep moutain to climb.

I can only hope I'm wrong.

CCS gets a political boost...

One of the potentially most effective mitigating technologies in the climate change saga is gaining significant steam.

Carbon Capture & Storage (CCS) could very well be the focal point of North American climate change strategy. In a CBC interview last evening, Barack Obama expressed significant interest in establishing a continental energy and environmental policy plan, much of which would involve capturing and storing carbon emissions.

Obama acknowledged each country's massive dirty energy arsenal: coal reserves in the United States are some of the greatest in the world and of course, Canada's Oil Sands, which constitute Canada's placement as second in global oil reserves. Coal and oil are the two sources of energy that CCS can be implemented most effectively against.

The Canadian federal government has been touting CCS as its main answer to climate change, but other than funding towards a few pilot projects, nothing serious has actually come along.

But if Obama is taking it seriously, CCS could soon see a massive boost. We're seeing how much money he's willing to throw around. And at least in his speeches, Obama means business when it comes to throwing around taxpayers' money. Harper and the rest of the federal government would certainly need to follow suit, especially if CCS is part of a continental plan.

CCS Battlefield: CNN Advertising Airtime

                                                                                 vs.

The commercial breaks between CNN shows have become the latest battlefield in the adoption of controversial Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology. For many weeks, the folks over at the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) had been serving up commercials trying to cozy viewers up to the idea of a continued use of coal as a primary source of electricity generation in the United States. 

The commercials (found here) focus on the importance coal plays in the American electricity supply (approximately 50%), the cheapness of coal-produced electricity, the abundance of coal in America (take note of the whole energy independence issue in the US) and the prevalence of CCS as a means of capturing all the environmentally harmful emissions produced from coal. The last factor was the real sticking point.

As climate change gets more important, the coal industry has taken a real beating. Because coal is one of the dirtier energy sources (dirtier than oil and natural gas) in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, many are trying to get away from coal-fired electricity generation. Even in Canada, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty has pledged to shutdown all of Ontario's coal-fired plants in due course. But if all the harmful emissions from coal could be captured and stored safely, the United States would be looking at a pretty nice energy supply for the next few hundred years.

This is where the folks at Reality.Org have decided to step in. Over the past month or so, the group (which is comprised of several environmental organizations) has been putting together commercials (one found here) showcasing the lack of CCS technology in the US. According to Reality.org, there are no CCS projects up and running in the US for clean coal.

This is true, but several are in the works. Whether or not they ever get completed is questionable.

I certainly don't back either organization, but they each have some decent points. The ACCCE is right that clean coal could be a very effective and dependable source of electricity in the United States, if it works. CCS is outrageously expensive and would lower coal's affordability significantly. Not to mention that CCS plants are not proven to capture 100% of emissions from any energy source, including coal. On the other hand it seems that Reality.Org is primarily focusing on the lack of CCS projects. If CCS starts to be implemented for clean coal facilities, the Reality.Org argument may be significantly weakened. 

The most important aspect of this battle is to look at the organizations themselves. The ACCCE is formed by the corporate coal industry who see that their dominant industry is in danger. Reality.Org is made up of a coalition of environmental groups who have traditionally been very opposed to CCS and are in complete favour of renewable energy, sometimes offering unrealistic rhetoric on the viability of renewable technologies. It should all be taken with a grain of salt.

CCS: A double-edged sword...

One of the most promising and controversial solutions being offered to humanity's climate change problem is carbon capture and storage (CCS). Quite simply, the technology involves capturing the carbon-dioxide emitted from the larger industrial emitters (production factories, oil and gas refineries, etc), condensing the gas and sending it via pipeline to safe storage spots deep underground or underground. 

The technology has the potential to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions substantially, as high as 40% in some studies. This is higher than any other solution being offered, with the exception of voluntary reduction in consumption, which might be pushing it a bit.

Unfortunately, there are several downsides to such a technology. First of all, it's expensive. It requires huge capital investment, usually hovering in the billions of dollars. It's also a relatively new technology. Only two major projects are currently up and running (one being the Weyburn Project in Saskatchewan), but several others are starting up. Although there have been no reported problems in the two projects, research is still in its infancy. How can large firms be expected to invest in something that is so expensive and not yet proven to be fail-safe? Especially when it offers them very little benefit with the exception feeling good about keeping some carbon out of the atmosphere.

Nevertheless, government and industry have started to invest billions of dollars in the technology, including those in Canada and the United States. This does make CCS less costly, but it also diverts the already limited funding available for abatement technologies away from alternative technologies like renewable energy systems.

Then again, there has to be something said for a technology that allows us to continue living the way we do without being as detrimental to the environment. This is incredibly tempting and somewhat realistic. We're not going to suddenly drop our use of oil or other fossil fuels overnight. At least CCS will make the transition less harmful than otherwise.

But it may also delay the changes that we need to avoid the worst consequences of climate change. 

CCS has the potential to both contribute greatly to a reduction in our carbon emissions, but also delay the changes we need in the long-term. What to do? What to do?