tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1512343638859614452024-03-05T11:57:28.170-08:00Thoughts on Climate ChangeHow serious is global climate change?Bernardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15951619465188564252noreply@blogger.comBlogger140125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-151234363885961445.post-83764757236971088942016-04-26T17:27:00.000-07:002016-04-26T17:27:23.401-07:00April 2016 in BC<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZAfLS0XTNZL4X6CicT-s5OnBKQxS2Rm7xpejXZ-3uJ83ZjxnYO61oXkltA63vgWQBeJvMadw9B7UDiKAt_CVdYcdYeBQm7Ib5_-Mc2P-xh7snXKMfUZ1cGlbXlIIj82A7SXG0-TfQ3A3B/s1600/April+18th+Fire+Danger.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZAfLS0XTNZL4X6CicT-s5OnBKQxS2Rm7xpejXZ-3uJ83ZjxnYO61oXkltA63vgWQBeJvMadw9B7UDiKAt_CVdYcdYeBQm7Ib5_-Mc2P-xh7snXKMfUZ1cGlbXlIIj82A7SXG0-TfQ3A3B/s400/April+18th+Fire+Danger.jpg" width="400" /></a>This month has seen some dramatic highs in the province and has been relatively dry. <br />
<br />
We have seen temperatures in mid April in Victoria that would be close to record highs at the end of May. Record highs that have stood for decades, or in one case more than 100 years, have fallen by up to five degrees.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMNwOw1FU16zEeDH2DzQx1BET8vj04Trx-rArF7rhE7QahO89aKMte-ePHCGN5QIfHaV6YbNl0_EiMDKBk6UHroVTMU15FeZD07ZN3R2ENvowugRgFCCtmzI-6Kj_W8sA0JrsrSicqQM52/s1600/Feb+2016+global+temps.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="257" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMNwOw1FU16zEeDH2DzQx1BET8vj04Trx-rArF7rhE7QahO89aKMte-ePHCGN5QIfHaV6YbNl0_EiMDKBk6UHroVTMU15FeZD07ZN3R2ENvowugRgFCCtmzI-6Kj_W8sA0JrsrSicqQM52/s400/Feb+2016+global+temps.jpg" width="400" /></a>We have seen a dramatic number of wildfires in BC already. We are just short of 15,000 hectares burned in BC. This would be a very high large area burned at the end of June in most years. It is in fact a larger area than what burned in 13 of the last 96 years.<br />
<br />
Globally February and March were dramatically warmer than in the past.<br />
<br />
So is this climate change? Likely but it is also not the only reason for extremes. We are in an El Nino which leads to warmer temperatures in some parts of the world.<br />
<br />
We are experiencing the strongest El Nino on record. This should mean BC is warmer and drier than normal, which seems to be the case, but the warmer temperatures of this spring are wildly out of the normal range. El Nino should mean other areas are seeing cooler temperatures but this is not the case that I can see anywhere globally.<br />
<br />
The extreme highs we saw in BC last week are well outside of any historical precedence - not only were records set, but those records were up to five degrees higher. There is no way this can be placed on El Nino, no matter how strong, This is clearly climate change. The only significant change in the last century has been the increase in greenhouse gases from humans. Bernardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15951619465188564252noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-151234363885961445.post-30748939606926368952016-01-01T13:51:00.000-08:002016-01-01T13:51:05.028-08:00In 2015 -eating beef was 52% of my greenhouse gas impactIn my life the biggest source of greenhouse gases comes from eating beef and dairy. If I want to reduce my impact on the world reducing beef and dairy will be the easiest way to do it.<br />
<br />
Currently I have consumed the following beef and dairy per year<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Beef - 50 to 60 kg per year - this is about equivalent to 1,250 kg of CO2 </li>
<li>Dairy - 230 to 255 kg per year comprising </li>
<ul>
<li>Milk - 150 to 200 litres per year about equivalent to 140 kg of CO2</li>
<li>Butter - 20 to 25 kg per year - about equivalent to 133 kg of CO2</li>
<li>Ice Cream - 25 to 40 kg per year about equivalent to 50 kg of CO2</li>
<li>Yougurt and Sour Cream - 2 to 4 kg per year about equivalent to 5 kg of CO2</li>
<li>Cheese - 10 to 15 kg per year - about equivalent to 53 kg of CO2</li>
</ul>
</ul>
<div>
This means my CO2 equivalent from beef and dairy last year was about 1,630 kg</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
These numbers are all based numbers specific for BC.</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.tru.ca/__shared/assets/Raymond_Thesis_201333100.pdf"><span style="font-size: x-small;">INVESTIGATING THE CARBON FOOTPRINT OF CATTLE GRAZING THE LAC DU BOIS </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">GRASSLANDS: </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">The effects changes in management may have on reducing and removing GHG </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">emissions, and opportunities for BC ranchers to xplore carbon offset </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">opportunities.</span></a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022030213004797" style="font-size: small;">Carbon footprint of Canadian dairy products: Calculations and issues</a></li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>
I also eat about:</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>25 kg of chicken per year, 40 kg CO2eq</li>
<li>15 kg of pork per year, 38 kg CO2eq</li>
<li>100 kg of wheat per year - 80 kg CO2eq</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>
By far the biggest single source is from beef. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
My other sources of greenhouse gases in 2015</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>Car travel - 100 kg CO2</li>
<li>Transit - 200 kg CO2</li>
<li>Other food 50 kg CO2</li>
<li>Electricity 180 kg CO2</li>
<li>Consumer goods 100 kg CO2</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>
Making my 2015 greenhouse gas impact at 2.4 Tonnes CO2 eq.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
2/3s comes from beef and dairy and 52% alone from beef. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I am going to try and reduce the beef and dairy I eat this year. If I can reduce it by 50% I should be able to reduce my 2016 CO2 equivalent to about 1.6 Tonnes. My beef intact is already down 40% from what it has been in the past. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This or course would be dramatically different if I fly anywhere this year or if I end up with a car again. </div>
Bernardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15951619465188564252noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-151234363885961445.post-67942401892978129162015-12-01T12:32:00.001-08:002015-12-01T12:32:50.285-08:00BC Forest Fire Trend Indicates a Change in Climate<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
The data from BC forest fires seems to be showing a trend to more extreme fire seasons than previously seen. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
In 2003 we saw a change in the amount of forest burned in BC with the first very serious fire season in almost 20 years. If 2003 had been a one off it would just be the normal occasional extreme fire year but six of the last 13 years have been extreme fire years and two more of them were bad fire years. We have also see three instances of extreme fire yeas back to back. The last time this happened at all was in the 1930s.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Extreme fire seasons from 1920 to 2012 (200,000+ ha) 20 of which nine were during the steam train era and six in the last 13 years. In the 52 fire seasons from 1951 to 2002 there were only five extreme fire seasons</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiyy1pPlPPQ53jL0vTC5LjeX0G7DLoTm_ioaqOfdKP-AYfMvegVGR4wtGtrz0hWwBJZsJTwZA9-JffVA4wGO_EDPHXqUQLKhR5sPAl9saCteoI1adGDFBd16rf8b0H46Qw-Eas8F_nYDIZ5/s1600/Area+burned+by+year+in+BC+from+1920+to+2015.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="414" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiyy1pPlPPQ53jL0vTC5LjeX0G7DLoTm_ioaqOfdKP-AYfMvegVGR4wtGtrz0hWwBJZsJTwZA9-JffVA4wGO_EDPHXqUQLKhR5sPAl9saCteoI1adGDFBd16rf8b0H46Qw-Eas8F_nYDIZ5/s640/Area+burned+by+year+in+BC+from+1920+to+2015.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTW0KiC3R7tCgI6yYlidgmT07g-0XldCSkofB9V7gw4Jz-nw9uZBK7HFhb05AfGqEROot27MsiLndBFGmvBdzSFialxb-yee4BcJ5schJ2ob6cCi9h-AAQx-EA33DcWf_OOtFXx5sxuMIv/s1600/10+year+average+number+of+fires+1930-2015.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="416" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTW0KiC3R7tCgI6yYlidgmT07g-0XldCSkofB9V7gw4Jz-nw9uZBK7HFhb05AfGqEROot27MsiLndBFGmvBdzSFialxb-yee4BcJ5schJ2ob6cCi9h-AAQx-EA33DcWf_OOtFXx5sxuMIv/s640/10+year+average+number+of+fires+1930-2015.JPG" width="640" /></a>This graph of the rolling average of area burned over 10 years shows a dramatic rise in the last 12 years. The spike from 1958 to 1967 is mainly due to one very extreme year. Overall we had a general declining trend in area burned through to 2002 but since 2003 the trend has been upwards rather quickly. The only cause for the fires seems to be due to dryer and warmer summers in BC. The mountain pine beetle killed trees have not been a major contribution to the fires.</div>
<br />
<br />Bernardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15951619465188564252noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-151234363885961445.post-88572676664461055942015-04-23T09:49:00.000-07:002015-04-23T11:03:02.761-07:00A Graph of Rising Investment in Renewable Energy<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRWrdky-YPX7OeyJPJ8O3nHKtpyvMxxzp9anbx_u-aXN9kYuuswCY13JQxLP3Kc5XDQcHsVKB7DjnDWHubMxocQxpuigX0_HUJfZaedjigPFFFTOE5JSuFTbcXNMHV9TFtqwaBEGt4UAae/s1600/Renewable+Power+graph.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRWrdky-YPX7OeyJPJ8O3nHKtpyvMxxzp9anbx_u-aXN9kYuuswCY13JQxLP3Kc5XDQcHsVKB7DjnDWHubMxocQxpuigX0_HUJfZaedjigPFFFTOE5JSuFTbcXNMHV9TFtqwaBEGt4UAae/s1600/Renewable+Power+graph.png" height="640" width="359" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
I am amazed that solar power has fallen in enough in cost to be competitive with fossil fuels. It would not take much more of a drop to make solar cheaper than this will reduce the demand for fossil fuels.</div>
<br />Bernardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15951619465188564252noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-151234363885961445.post-70324818867441727472014-11-25T16:15:00.001-08:002014-11-25T16:15:19.603-08:00Cheap oil and gas will stop many developmentsThe price of oil and natural gas has dropped over the last years because supply has outstripped demand and this means the price has fallen. For years people have predicted peak oil and the world coming to an end with the price constantly rising. That has never seemed realistic to me because as the price rose cheaper alternatives would gain market share and technology would drive the amount of energy needed and the cost to produce it down. <br />
<br />
Natural gas has benefited more from fracking than oil because there seem to be more opportunities to unconventional gas that has been opened up by the new technology. Another change is the emerging global gas market. Oil has always been a global commodity but natural gas has not been because it is not easy to transport without a pipeline. Now with the massive global rise in LNG there is a global price emerging and the price is weak everywhere. Natural gas is the best of the fossil fuels and has a near term future as there is a shift to electricity produced by natural gas, but in the long term it will be replaced by other sources of electrical power,<br />
<br />
Oil has seen the addition of a lot of new supply from the tar sands in Canada but also because of fracking, which has lead to a huge increase in US oil production. As I write this the price of oil is $76 to $80 a barrel, prices not seen since the depth of the global economic crisis in 2009, which was a temporary drop at that time. From July 2010 to July 2014 the price of Brent oil was about $110 a barrel. The WTI and Brent prices are not the Canadian prices,the Western Canadian Select price for oil is at $66.03 a barrel today. <br />
<br />
For years now the price of tar sands oil has been significantly lower than the WTI or Brent crude oil prices. There is two reasons for this, tar sands oil is not as a nice a product as WTI and there is a constraint problem when it comes to delivery, Alberta produces more oil than the pipelines can move.<br />
<br />
This lower price for oil makes building more pipeline capacity uneconomic at this time. There are at least eight tar sands projects that require a much higher price of oil than the current market prices. These projects represent about $40 billion of capital investment over the next ten years. That is $4 billion less investment per year in Alberta for the next ten years..<br />
<br />
Even the shale oil of North Dakota becomes financially questionable when the price is below $80, the cost to produce a barrel from North Dakota runs from $50 to $90. The margins will be low, but not too low to stop an expansion of drilling. <br />
<br />
With an ongoing high price of oil for the last decade the public and businesses have found ways to use less oil. Global demand for oil has been growing slower than rising supply, it has not even been growing as fast the global economy.<br />
<br />
Supply is not likely to fall much soon. As the boom fades the costs to drill for new oil will fall. This is for two reasons, first the crazy prices that have to be paid for anything to do with drilling will fall and second the drop in price will push more technological advances. At the same time the oil being produced in the tar sands will not go down because tar sands projects require large up front capital investments to start. Once the projects have been built the operational costs per barrel is low enough to allow them to continue even with a significant fall in the price of oil.<br />
<br />
At the same the cost to produce green electricity has been falling dramatically. The price for wind, solar and geothermal is dropping quickly and is now rivaling the cost to produce to electricity from fossil fuels. It seems probable that in the next five to ten years renewables will be cheaper than all the fossil fuels for producing electricity. Electrical production is a major use of natural gas and coal, without this demand the price will drop. The still cheaper natural gas and coal will displace some oil and help to keep the price of oil low.<br />
<br />
The fossil fuel era will come to an end not through protests or government intervention, but through simple economics.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Bernardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15951619465188564252noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-151234363885961445.post-55527990039197137812014-09-18T13:22:00.000-07:002014-09-18T13:22:13.512-07:00Do I use fewer resources to live than my parents?Both my parents were born in Estonia in the 1920s. Certainly I think it is clear that until the early 1960s my parents used fewer resources than I do now but after that I do use fewer resources than they did.<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Where I am Ahead of Parents</b></div>
<div>
Fuel use - As a kid my parents had a station wagon with a V8 engine. I have no idea what the fuel consumption was but I am sure it was not very good. They also drove a lot more kilometers ber year than I do now. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Home heating - My parent's home was not that well insulated, not bad for the 1960s but not great. It cost them a lot more to keep their home warm than the one I live in now.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Garbage - My family produced two full cans of garbage every week as I was growing, When recycling came and all of us kids left home it fell to one not full can a week. I fill an average garbage can about every three to four weeks. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Electricity use - I may have more things that use electrical power but at the same time my newer fridge, stove, and washer use a lot less power to operate. The improvement in the white goods along with no longer having vacuum tube screens has really reduced my power use in comparison to my parents. The biggest difference is that my parents did not have a dryer till the mid 1970s. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Flying - Starting the 1960s my parents took a major international flight in most years. The planes from the 1960s and 70s used a lot more fuel than today. I also happen to fly a lot less then they did. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Where I am behind</b></div>
<div>
Electronics - Not only do I have a lot more than they ever had, they do not last very long. A computer that lasts for four years is very old and outdated. The electronic waste I produce each year is astonishing</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Batteries - I go through a huge number of AA and AAA batteries per year. Growing up we never needed this many batteries</div>
Bernardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15951619465188564252noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-151234363885961445.post-29742211474706030462014-01-08T11:13:00.001-08:002014-01-08T11:13:19.543-08:00BC Hydro is not isolated from the rest of the gridBC Hydo is part of a larger grid which means what we do here has an impact on the others, what they impacts us. All the power we produce in BC is not just our power, it is part of the Western Interconnection. People in BC need to understand we are not on our own.<br />
<br />
In North America the grid is connected north-south as opposed to east west. What we do in BC is more connected with LA than with Saskatoon.<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMOft_ML8qP1P_qKTAcRhB1aysAPU5O1mlIxJkLTYFRRwNmvQGDbF3pWPiHoaJNDm0VorM_KP704fkh5it3bUYmiS2LxtXF2CBi34445lx1a0nhj-Std6zffFr0Q8Cd6WPnRsQEMgd3lTT/s1600/NERC_Interconnections_color.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMOft_ML8qP1P_qKTAcRhB1aysAPU5O1mlIxJkLTYFRRwNmvQGDbF3pWPiHoaJNDm0VorM_KP704fkh5it3bUYmiS2LxtXF2CBi34445lx1a0nhj-Std6zffFr0Q8Cd6WPnRsQEMgd3lTT/s1600/NERC_Interconnections_color.jpg" height="490" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Interconnections in North America</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
The idea that we can be power self sufficient in BC is a fallacy because we are part of a much larger grid. We can produce more power than we need but that does not make us self sufficient. Our connection to the rest of the interconnection is a benefit to us and the whole interconnection.<br />
<br />
Since we produce most of our power from hydroelectric sources, we are in a position to turn on and off the power. Large scale coal and nuclear power plants can not shut themselves down overnight. They have to continue producing power all night. In BC was are in a position to buy this power over night which means their power is not wasted<br />
<br />
Longer term what we can do in BC is displace a lot of coal power in the west. Each time we add more micro-hydro to the grid, there is less demand from more coal power. If we were adding the new green power faster, we could push the decommissioning of more coal fired power.<br />
<br />
Large scale power plants are big capital investments, they need long term time frames to build. For a nuclear or coal fired power-plant the initial capital investment means that once it is built you need decades of operation to defray that cost. It is a reason we have not seen massive decommissioning but it is also a reason new capital intensive power-plants have not been common in North America.<br />
<br />
We have seen an oversupply in electrical power in North America for some years now, this has been going on long enough to inhibit new "brown" electrical power. When the prices do rise again, realistically only smaller scale green power will be able to meet the needs. Here in BC there are numerous run of the river and wind projects that could be constructed rather quickly when the price does rise. Bernardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15951619465188564252noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-151234363885961445.post-71262324237836022672013-09-26T14:40:00.001-07:002013-09-26T14:40:08.116-07:00Up to 300MW of wind power proposed for the Greater Victoria area<a href="http://www.timberwest.com/home.aspx">TimberWest</a> and <a href="http://www.edpr.com/our-business/our-markets/canada/">EDP Renewables Canada</a> <a href="http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1231967/timberwest-and-edp-renewables-canada-partner-on-large-scale-wind-power-projects-on-vancouver-island-and-sign-mou-with-t-sou-ke-first-nation">announced today</a> that they are partnering to develop about 300 MW capacity of wind energy near Sooke. It is a relatively large development which is great news because it will significantly increase green power production in BC.<br />
<br />
At the moment we do not produce enough power on Vancouver Island to meet our local needs. This project would be an important step to seeing the island produce enough power locally.<br />
<br />
The details:<br />
<ul>
<li>The expected cost to build these wind projects is about $600,000,000 to $750,000,000. </li>
<li>This scale of installed wind capacity is likely to produce 600 to 1,200 GWh per year or about 1% to 2% of the electrical power used in BC at the moment.</li>
<li>Realistically it will require between 50 and 100 wind turbines.</li>
<li>The location is on to be on TimberWest lands near Sooke</li>
<li>It is close to the existing BC Hydro transmission grid </li>
</ul>
TimberWest and EDP Renewables have signed any agreement with the T'Souke First Nation, which I am impressed by. It is very important to include First Nations very early in any natural resource development project.<br />
<br />
So where would the wind turbines be located? The area I have circled in black are the most likely locations for the turbines. It is on TimberWest land, it is the first ridge coming off of the Strait of Juan de Fuca and it is reasonably close to the BC Hydro transmission line that starts in Jordan River. Being close to the existing transmission grid makes all new power projects much more affordable.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKlhyAZcKIvfPgIvcW3zsB3Y3y7Zp4JbeDu_DwQl7aojm_bZOxmVqO1c-2Dao-_B3vX6dr6xwFoHnN_w66qexXj2GukkjfIaPCBXHVvZCk7NeeiZNvJo2nS800XNBnVKHQl2TwEqScJFvy/s1600/Where+the+wind+tubines+would+most+likely+go.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="321" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKlhyAZcKIvfPgIvcW3zsB3Y3y7Zp4JbeDu_DwQl7aojm_bZOxmVqO1c-2Dao-_B3vX6dr6xwFoHnN_w66qexXj2GukkjfIaPCBXHVvZCk7NeeiZNvJo2nS800XNBnVKHQl2TwEqScJFvy/s640/Where+the+wind+tubines+would+most+likely+go.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Here is a panorama of the eastern most extent of the ridge - the picture is from Google Streetview. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJsXAuhyphenhyphentXoZrbW6jbA_7zGWJGkUYz0vGCVqUu-3RYhoVRGUPdpRwvVnYzZ0IiT3SDz1ttNtE1B1g1Inm0eDWud01TmnUM7xaGsD6ekd9ciWO5xymvkW7yF-DWXr_yeUUtdQIDa_2ftj27/s1600/Part+of+the+ridge.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="162" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJsXAuhyphenhyphentXoZrbW6jbA_7zGWJGkUYz0vGCVqUu-3RYhoVRGUPdpRwvVnYzZ0IiT3SDz1ttNtE1B1g1Inm0eDWud01TmnUM7xaGsD6ekd9ciWO5xymvkW7yF-DWXr_yeUUtdQIDa_2ftj27/s640/Part+of+the+ridge.JPG" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
If I find a better picture of the ridge I will post it on here</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
One final important consideration. Wind power really fluctuates making it hard to have consistent power. Ideally you need a way to store some of the power to even out the load. <a href="http://www.bchydro.com/content/dam/hydro/medialib/internet/documents/info/pdf/2008_ltap_appendix_f4a.pdf">The reservoirs at Jordan River have been analysed by BC Hydro for pumped storage and there is some potential for this</a>. The orginal memo only considered hydro and not any potential for using pumped storage for wind power.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
I am curious the role the CRD will have in any approvals of this project, I worry they might interfere with it and slow down or stop the development of more green power in BC.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
All in all I think this is a great project and I hope it gets off of the ground very quickly.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
Bernardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15951619465188564252noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-151234363885961445.post-8661264782909518422013-08-26T16:57:00.001-07:002013-08-26T16:57:13.589-07:00Burning wood is not a simply carbon neutral exchangeThere are plans in Europe to run powerplants on burning wood to make electricity. The current rules for carbon neutrality allows this to be considered neutral as an activity but I disagree with that as an approach.<br />
<br />
Whenever wood is burnt we dramatically speed the process at which the stored carbon is released. If do not burn wood it takes much longer for the wood to decay and release the carbon. The average time for a the carbon in a 100 year old tree to be stored is 50 years or so, if you burn it is released right away.<br />
<br />
A 2x4 that is used for construction of building is likely to remain in place in that building for 50 years. Once the building is no longer needed the 2x4 is most likely going to end up in a landfill, though burning demolition waste is becoming more common. If the 2x4 does end up in the landfill it can decades longer before it decomposes. Realistically a 2x4 will store carbon for 80 or so years. This means in a 100 year old tree that is harvested the carbon will be stored for an average of 130 years which is 2.6 times as long as if you burn the wood.<br />
<br />
The burning of wood significantly speeds up the carbon cycle. One has to remember that the trees cut down have not grown to the end of their natural life and the decay process in the forests is not a fast one. Finding 100 year old remains of trees in the forest is not uncommon. All timber harvesting speeds up the carbon cycle, burning harvested trees shortens it even more so. It is only an old growth forest that is truly carbon neutral.<br />
<br />
In either case there is carbon being emitted which adds to the load already in the atmosphere and oceans. While the very fact that wood is part of the carbon cycle and is not a fossil fuel means it is an improvement over even the best fossil fuels it is still not neutral with respect to carbon emissions.Bernardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15951619465188564252noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-151234363885961445.post-32265846310345541022013-08-06T16:20:00.000-07:002013-08-06T16:20:08.684-07:00People Confuse Weather and ClimateAs humans we do not live long enough to be able to really notice changes in climate. To notice the change that is going people need to have lived in the same spot for half a century as an adult and paid attention to the natural world. Very, very few people have done this or are capable of doing this. People see individual weather events as an indication of a climate change.<br />
<br />
I am almost 48 years old but I do not honestly remember if there has been changes to weather from the 1960s or 70s because I was not old enough to really know the climate. Since I have been an adult I have lived the longest in the Lillooet region, 9 years and Victoria for 9 years, neither of these are long enough for me to see the trends on an observational level.<br />
<br />
Weather is what happens every day and we remember the extremes we experienced within our life. Climate is the context within which the weather happens. Climate is the long term reflection of the norm, it is an average of what happens which means you need a long data series to know what normal is and to know if there is change happening. <br />
<br />
To understand climate we need hundreds of years of data and know how all the data is affected by local changes because of human civilization..A ten or twenty year data set tells us very little unless we can compare it to the past. What we as people remember is the weather, the anomalies over the short term. <br />
<br />
Someone that has lived in the same rural location for 50 or more years and had to pay attention to the climate might be able to know enough to see a change. Are plants sprouting earlier? Is it wetter or drier? Is there a longer frost free period?<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.victoriaweather.ca/">I love the fact that for Victoria we know have close to eight years of weather data for a multitude of locations across the city</a>. But this data does not tell me if there is a change in climate. I am beginning to be able to see patterns in microclimates in Victoria and even close to where I live, but it is not enough to know what is really normal and what is not. I have better information on the frost free period but not enough to be certain it may not come late in the spring or early in the fall. I also do not have five decades of personal experience in this neighbourhood.<br />
<br />
We need a lot more detailed microclimate data to know what may be happening but it will be hard to recreate the data from decades or even centuries ago with enough precision needed to matter. Bernardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15951619465188564252noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-151234363885961445.post-10330236145930515332013-07-16T10:48:00.001-07:002013-07-16T10:48:11.573-07:00Can BC use the lack of a carbon tax as an unfair trade practice?<div align="LEFT" style="border: none; line-height: 0.2in; margin-bottom: 0in; padding: 0in;">
<span style="line-height: 0.2in;">As long as countries have to agree to voluntarily put restrictions in places, the multi-national negotiations like the Copenhagen Summit of 2009 are doomed to failure. We have to use some way within the existing multi-lateral relations between nations to force things to happen. One of the few truly global systems we have are the trade agreements such as the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wto">World Trade Organization</a>.</span><br />
<span style="line-height: 0.2in;"><br /></span>
<span style="line-height: 0.2in;">BC should take leadership in climate change and use WTO or NAFTA as a
way to claim that not having a carbon tax is an unfair trade practice. It would not have to only be BC but other jurisdictions with carbon taxes that could go and make the same claim, but someone has to start. </span><br />
<br />
Allowing the unlimited dumping of CO2 into the atmosphere reduces the costs for industry which gives them an unfair advantage over industry elsewhere. Climate change is a global problem but suffers from the tragedy of the the commons - countries benefit in the short term by not acting. The economies of countries that do act now are slowed by the actions. It seems to me there is a clear case for a claim of unfair trade practices.</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="border: none; line-height: 0.2in; margin-bottom: 0in; padding: 0in;">
<br />
A successful case in relation to carbon pricing would force countries to either enact some form of pricing or face serious c<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countervailing_duties">ountervailing duties</a>. Either way the problem of tragedy of the commons is lessened and it becomes possible for more action on climate change.<br />
<br />
So if this approach were not to work or would take too long, there is no reason BC could not apply a carbon tax on all products coming into BC based on the fuel they would have used to produce the product. It would mean products from China would be more marginally more expensive but this should help BC based producers of goods a small improvement.</div>
Bernardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15951619465188564252noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-151234363885961445.post-72144217854609218342013-03-18T13:42:00.000-07:002013-03-18T13:42:04.167-07:00Why do I feel like I do not do enough?<br />
<ul>
<li>I compost and have done so for years.</li>
<li>I have done what I can to keep the house warm with less heating and I heat from an very low CO2 source</li>
<li>I take the bus some of the time, not all the time but a lot more than most people I know</li>
<li>I rarely fly in a plane</li>
<li>I have three rain barrels</li>
<li>My food is almost all unprocessed and this means I bake my own bread most days.</li>
<li>I grow some of my own food.</li>
</ul>
<br />
But it all really does not feel like enough even though I know it is a lot more than most people would do without cost being the primary reason.<br />
<br />
I feel like it is not enough because I have a sense of the scale of the problem we are facing. As nice as small changes are, they really are not enough. What I am doing on an individual level is not going to make a difference.<br />
<br />
Do I need to change the focus of my life to make global solutions to climate change the focus of it?Bernardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15951619465188564252noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-151234363885961445.post-87978399481794503082013-02-28T13:05:00.001-08:002013-02-28T13:05:20.106-08:00Large Scale Hydro Projects in North AmericaAfter a long period of no new large scale dam projects in North America, we are seeing a number of them now under construction and more proposed.<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>BC - Site C on the Peace River - 5100 GWh per year - $7.9 billion</li>
<li>Manitoba - Keeyask Project - 4,400 GWh per year - $6.5 billion</li>
<li>Newfoundland and Labrador - Muskrat Falls - 4,900 GWh per year - $7.7 billion</li>
<li>Quebec - Romaine River project - 7500 GWh per year - $6.5 billion cost</li>
<li>Quebec - Sarcelle and Eastmain 1A - 8,700 GWh per year </li>
</ul>
<br />
On the books but not actively being pursued<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Alberta - Slave River project - est 6,000 GWH per year - est $5 billion - on hold due ot lakc of agreement with First Nations</li>
<li>Quebec - Petit Mecatina - 6,200 GWH per year</li>
<li>Newfoundland and Labrador - Gull Island - 11,700 GWh per year </li>
</ul>
Bernardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15951619465188564252noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-151234363885961445.post-15795963026730663082013-01-08T12:13:00.000-08:002013-01-08T12:13:00.459-08:00"Site C" - Can we afford to build it?On many levels building <a href="http://www.bchydro.com/energy_in_bc/projects/site_c.html">the "Site C" dam</a> on the Peace River is attractive. The Peace already has two dams on it so much of the damage has already been done and the Site C location would simply capture more power. It will have some significant impacts on the Peace River valley but I think the bigger impact is the cost of the project. I think the current estimate of $7,900,000,000 is likely way too low and the final cost will be much higher than that making this very expensive power to bring online, more expensive than buying power from independent power producers.<br />
<br />
The Peace River power projects first came about in the 1950s with Axel Wenner-Gren's bold proposals for Northern BC. From this evolved Premier WAC Bennett's Two Rivers policy for developing hydro power in BC - the Columbia system and the Peace River. Two dams were completed on the Peace River and serious consideration was to have two more. What there is left of this project now is the "Site C" location.<br />
<br />
Peace Dams - built and proposed<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.bchydro.com/community/recreation_areas/w_a_c_bennett_dam_visitor_centre.html">The WAC Bennett Dam</a> was finished in 1968 and created the very large Williston Reservoir and produces 13,100 GWh/yr. It is located 18 kilometers west of Husdon's Hope</li>
<li><a href="http://www.bchydro.com/community/recreation_areas/peace_canyon_dam_visitor_centre.html">The Peace Canyon Dam</a> was finished in 1980 and created the small Dinosaur Reservoir and produces 3,500 GWh/yr. It is located 21 kilometers downstream from the WAC Bennett Dam and 7 kilometers upstream from Hudson's Hope</li>
<li>"Site A" dropped in favour of "Site C"</li>
<li>"Site B" dropped because of bad geology</li>
<li>"Site C" is located 83 kilometers downstream from the Peace Canyon Dam and 7 kilometers west of Fort St John. It would produce about 5.100 GWh/yr</li>
<li>"Site D" dropped because of bad geolocy</li>
<li>"Site E" was proposed just to the west of the BC Alberta border on the Peace River. It was dropped as an option in the 1980s</li>
</ul>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgaj6T50gSnqS_dtpzl-ge03YKPawTvECAvG3t3Ktz28VujoqiKMdC-SUP-JWlx7AmbN3h0bFp_RlDepyxp-m6knd2KHKAnw7yJf3-wxB6VtpCoa9_enP1_fhWOBFGHY_fAA6oza_hmgKa3/s1600/Site+A+through+E+locations.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="356" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgaj6T50gSnqS_dtpzl-ge03YKPawTvECAvG3t3Ktz28VujoqiKMdC-SUP-JWlx7AmbN3h0bFp_RlDepyxp-m6knd2KHKAnw7yJf3-wxB6VtpCoa9_enP1_fhWOBFGHY_fAA6oza_hmgKa3/s640/Site+A+through+E+locations.JPG" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Locations that have been considered for dams on the Peace</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
BC Hydro has never let go of the idea of developing "Site C" even though it was dormant enough after 1991 that everyone thought the idea was dead. It is now very seriously under consideration, in fact BC Hydro is acting as it is a done deal. The one aspect of the project that concerns me more than any other is the cost to build the dam.<br />
<br />
The early stage estimate in 2007 was for it to cost $6,600,000,000 to build the Site C dam on the Peace River. In May 2011 this had been raised to $7,900,000,000. <br />
<br />
Given the stage of the project and the nature of public sector capital project estimates, I see the real construction costs of this project being in the range of $10,000,000,000 to $20,000,000,000. Amortized over 30 years the construction cost per KWh is $0.0654 to $0.118. What this means is that the construction costs alone of this power will be likely be higher than what BC Hydro will be able to sell the power for. To arrive at my numbers I simply took the project costs that I suspect it will be and divided it by 30 years of power production.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.bchydro.com/etc/medialib/internet/documents/planning_regulatory/site_c/2011q2/site_c_project_description.Par.0001.File.Site_C_Project_Description_Report_%20May_2011.pdf">In the May 2011 BC Hydro estimated a project cost of $7,900,000,000</a>. BC Hydro estimates the cost of the power to be $0.087 to $0.095 per MWh. Most of this cost is from the costs to build the project<br />
<br />
Based on the likely costs of the "Site C" project and what it costs BC Hydro to produce power, it would seem that BC Hydro would have to sell the power for about $0.09 to $0.14 per KWh to break even in 2020 with this rising to $0.12 to $0.17 per KWh in 2040. BC Hydro currently buys power from IPPs at an average of $0.068 per KWh and most of their purchase agreements are set up in such a way that this price is highly unlikely to reach $0.10 per KWh anytime soon. Building "Site C" will cost BC Hydro more than relying on the private sector.<br />
<br />
"Site C" only makes sense if the cost of power is affordable and if it is the best option for more power in this province. What I have not seen is a good business case for why "Site C" is economically the best option for BC. The 2007 feasibility study certainly does not make a strong case because it does not look at what the other options are out there.<br />
<br />
At the moment BC Hydro's latest call for power is at roughly $0.10 per KWh which then rises at half the rate of inflation for the term of the contract which is anywhere from 20 to 40 years. The latest call for power is only available for very small projects, the upper limit is a capacity of 15 MW which is why the rates are higher than for previous IPPs. Because BC Hydro will only cover half the rate of inflation, it means that over time the cost of the IPP electricity will fall in adjusted terms. A purchase agreement now for $0.10 per KWh would be $0.135 in 20 years with 3% inflation. If the full rate of inflation were applied it would be $0.181. <br />
<br />
With the latest call for very small scale power projects that is on offer BC Hydro, the company can be reasonably certain of new IPP power built now being available in 2040 for about $0.135 per KWh. The cost of getting that power from "Site C" will be roughly the same cost but with BC Hydro taking all the risk. A new larger scale call for green power in BC will very likely make power available to BC Hydro in the short term - less than five years - for significantly less than the cost of "Site C" power.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.bchydro.com/etc/medialib/internet/documents/planning_regulatory/acquiring_power/2012q4/20121101_ipp_supply_list_development.Par.0001.File.20121101-IPP-Supply-list-Development.pdf">BC Hydro will add about 8,500 GWh/yr of power from new IPPs coming online over the next few years</a>. The cost of all of this power will be cheaper than constructing "Site C". BC Hydro is already getting over 1,000 GWh/yr from projects that were part of the 2010 integrated power call. <br />
<br />
The economics of "Site C" simply make it a bad risk for BC Hydro and the province. For that reason alone I do not think we should go ahead with the project.Bernardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15951619465188564252noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-151234363885961445.post-4959663908995003582012-12-31T12:22:00.002-08:002012-12-31T12:22:43.693-08:00Why do people buy larger vehicles?The general cost of a vehicle has dropped over the generations when compared to the average income. Cars now have more features that ever before which masks the drop in price over time. It means more people can afford more of car than people could in the past. The options of owning something bigger is easier to afford which means people can consider it.<br />
<br />
The price for small City Cars is not all that low. The most basic Fiat 500 starts at $15,090, the bottom end Smart Car is $15,895. At the same a new minivan is available for $22,000. For that extra $6,000 to $7,000 you can buy a vehicle that can do a lot more for you.<br />
<br />
When we think of the sort of vehicle that is needed to achieve what we want we think about all the tasks we want to do. In most cases we have to make one car work for a host of purposes and this means a larger vehicle than we need to have 90% of the time. In the past the cost of an SUV or pickup would not have been reasonable for most people but that is no longer the case and therefore they are serious options when people consider what vehicle they wish to buy.<br />
<br />
If you have a family with three kids it is barely realistic to work with a five seat sedan. Anything that seats less than five is not going to work in any case. If you want to go on a trip and carry all your gear and drive 500 to 1,000 km on you trip, three kids kids sitting in one row of seats starts to fall apart. Most people would move to getting a minivan or a crew cab pick up.<br />
<br />
When you should for a family of five at a big box store you need enough space to carry all that you purchased. Buying groceries at Costco will save you a lot of money which then oft sets the cost of the larger vehicle.<br />
<br />
If you own any sort of acreage you ideally want to be able to buy yard and garden stuff for it and haul away your waste, this means you are looking at a pick up.<br />
<br />
If you like to go outdoors or go up skiing you will be predisposed towards a four wheel drive vehicle<br />
Most families really would prefer to operate with one vehicle which means the main vehicle has to be versatile to do a lot of things.<br />
<br />
What this all means is that for a lot of people their primary vehicle is a large one. If families have a two or more cars it is the second car that can be something small like a Fiat 500.<br />
<br />
An average minivan will use about 1000 litres more fuel than a small car in a year. That is an added cost of about $1300 a year or a bit more than $100 a month. This difference in cost is about the same as getting a Starbucks coffee everyday. If the price of gasoline were to go to $2.50 a litre, this is still only about $2500 a year more in fuel to drive a minivan than a City Car. The bigger impact is the general increase in the price of fuel but even then the cost for a minivan's fuel in a year is under $7,000 a year.<br />
<br />
As long as the cost of small vehicles is not dramatically lower than large ones, or as long as gasoline prices remain so low, there is little reason to expect people to buy smaller cars. <br />
<br />
<br />Bernardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15951619465188564252noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-151234363885961445.post-49136919170924253002012-07-05T11:28:00.001-07:002012-07-05T11:28:21.053-07:00Tumbler Ridge Wind Energy Project gets construction permit<br />
I got this email today:<br />
<br />
<i><b><a href="http://www.finavera.com/">Finavera Wind Energy</a> Receives Construction Permit for <a href="http://www.finavera.com/projects/canada/bc-peace-region/tumbler-ridge">Tumbler Ridge Wind Energy Project</a></b></i><br />
<i> <span style="background-color: white;"> </span></i><br />
<i>Vancouver, Canada, July 5th, 2012 - Finavera Wind Energy Inc. ('Finavera Wind Energy' or the 'Company') (TSX-V: FVR) is pleased to announce it has received a General Area Licence of Occupation (the "Licence") for the 47 megawatt Tumbler Ridge Wind Energy Project located in northeastern British Columbia. The Licence, which was issued by the Ministry of Forest, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, provides the approval for construction to commence on the project. The Tumbler Ridge Wind Energy Project recently received an Environmental Assessment Certificate and has a 25 year power purchase agreement with B.C. Hydro.</i><br />
<i> <span style="background-color: white;"> </span></i><br />
<i>The $125-million project will be located 8 kilometres west of Tumbler Ridge. Once completed, the project will generate enough power to provide electricity for up to 18,000 homes. The 12 month project construction period is expected to generate 560 person years of direct employment, and the operational phase of the project is expected to create 188 person years of full-time direct employment.</i><br />
<br />
<i>Finavera Wind Energy CEO Jason Bak said, "This is a key milestone for the Tumbler Ridge Wind Energy Project and allows Finavera to progress through the final steps towards construction of this project. Our next steps are to finalize financing for the project, execute a turbine supply agreement, and contract a group to undertake the construction process."</i><br />
<i> <span style="background-color: white;"> </span></i><br />
<i> Jason Bak, CEO </i><br />
<br />
<i>For more information:</i><br />
<br />
<i>Finavera Wind Energy</i><br />
<i>Myke Clark</i><br />
<i>SVP Business Development</i><br />
<i>Finavera Wind Energy </i><br />
<i>(604)-288-9051</i><br />
<i>mclark@finavera.com </i><br />
<br />
I wonder if this is the sort of project that the NDP will oppose if they become government in BC? As long as electrical rates are as low as they are now, the long term contracts are not making BC Hydro money, but I know of know one that thinks the price for electricity will not rise and rise a lot over the next five to ten years. Once the price goes up BC Hydro will look like genius for having a large supply of green power at below market rates.<br />Bernardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15951619465188564252noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-151234363885961445.post-48419568015893918692011-07-19T12:27:00.000-07:002011-07-19T12:27:15.651-07:00Metro Vancouver considering producing power from water systemMetro Vancouver is <a href="http://www.metrovancouver.org/BIDS/Pages/opportunities.aspx">seeking a a consultant to do a feasibility study</a> to investigate developing power from the water transmission system. I am very interested to see that they are doing this as all over BC we have water systems that could be producing power.<br />
<br />
The energy of the water could turn turbines and produce electrical power. The sale of this power would help defray the costs of the water system and would offer another source of green power.<br />
<br />
Generating power from municipal water systems or from irrigation systems is the lowest hanging green power generation possible. The water system is already in place, all that needs to be done is adding some form of a turbine at an appropriate spot in the system.<br />
<br />
At the moment the only municipal water system that I know of that is producing power is <a href="http://www.lakecountry.bc.ca/siteengine/activepage.asp?PageID=144">Lake Country from their Eldorado resevoir.</a> It is a very small system, but provides Lake Country with about $250,000 to $300,000 a year in revenue. I am not certain, but I think there are three systems connected to ranch irrigation systems.<br />
<br />
We have about 200 other municipal water systems that could produce power. My quick estimate is that they could bring us about 1000-2000 GWh of power per year. This is on the order of 1/4 to 1/3 of what Site C on the Peace would produce. This would also be around $10 million a year for local water systems in electrical power sales.<br />
<br />
Municipal water systems would have consistent flows year around, there would be not slow times as people are always showering and washing.<br />
<br />
If we look further at irrigation systems, there is a potential for something on the same order of power production per year, though they would be on average much smaller.<br />
<br />
It is these easy small solutions with no negative impacts that should be pushed.Bernardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15951619465188564252noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-151234363885961445.post-80953377943171118822011-05-25T12:59:00.000-07:002011-05-25T12:59:46.465-07:00Will it make any difference?<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisPgloV6olKva3U8YFXWJhDcKPXoq0_i0cQYS-iKP9TssA5MYb1BCEU7_9fy78yd7aiJQMdvGNT3uVMBJ0VHZhHxcAACeB9QZlxhoKV113NBe0yLZGmcOUPS-RP0nQQECfZXANAvGakV1m/s1600/water+barrel.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisPgloV6olKva3U8YFXWJhDcKPXoq0_i0cQYS-iKP9TssA5MYb1BCEU7_9fy78yd7aiJQMdvGNT3uVMBJ0VHZhHxcAACeB9QZlxhoKV113NBe0yLZGmcOUPS-RP0nQQECfZXANAvGakV1m/s320/water+barrel.jpg" width="240" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">One of my rain barrels</td></tr>
</tbody></table><a href="http://www.saanich.ca/living/climate/events.html">Saanich is offering a series of free lectures on topics related to climate change and what people could do at home</a>. The first one is on rainwater management and is this coming Saturday.<br />
<br />
The cost to hold these lectures and the impact they will have are not likely going to be worth it. The municipality would have a much bigger impact if it spent more money on building good sidewalks than holding these lectures. They would also have more of an impact if they made some changes to streets to allow buses to move a bit faster.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.saanich.ca/living/climate/programs.html">The whole set of pages for Saanich on climate change are simplistic</a>. As an example, the carbon calculator, it has various problems. <br />
<br />
It assumes all vehicles in a class and how you drive them are the same, if you want to calculate the CO2 emissions you just need to know the number of litres you use in a year. The CO2 emissions for electrical power is constantly fluctuating based on what power source we are drawing on. If you use power in the middle of the night, you have a higher CO2 impact because that power is in part coming from coal fired plants in the US or Alberta.<br />
<br />
Air travel is also not as simplistic as the calculator suggests. Much depends on the number of passengers on the plane, how old the plane is and the speed it is flown at. If you fly WestJet, your CO2 emissions will be lower because they have very new planes and have more passengers than average. If you fly Harbour Air you have zero CO2 emissions since the airline is carbon neutral.<br />
<br />
The calculator misses out a major source of greenhouse gases, the eating of meat.<br />
<br />
It also misses out the impact of what I do that might reduce CO2.<br />
<br />
The Saanich pages feel like "flavour of the month". There is no real thought or rigorous academic backing for what is being done or what is suggested people do. Lots of resources are going into project work that will have no impact.Bernardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15951619465188564252noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-151234363885961445.post-22009874463506433832011-05-10T16:14:00.000-07:002011-05-10T16:14:15.997-07:00Good piece from George MonboitGeorge Monboit writes in the Guardian and outlines the problem with climate change <a href="http://www.monbiot.com/2011/05/05/our-crushing-dilemmas/">in this article</a>. We have to reduce the use of fossil fuels and the biggest replacement will have to come electricity, specifically electricity with low carbon emissions. It is the need to replace the dirty the power with clean power that leads us to the problem.<br />
<br />
Read his piece, he really does outline the dilemma well. Here are some of my comments in relation to it.<br />
<br />
<br />
<ul><li>Global energy use is going to rise for at least the next thirty to fifty years, likely for longer than that. We have the majority of the global population going to go through the point in their economic development in which energy needs will be dramatically rising.</li>
<li>To reduce demand the price of energy will have to rise dramatically. The one and only thing that has ever managed to reduce demand has been a rise in price. If the goal is a net reduction of energy use over the next generation, there will have to be a 100% or more increase in all energy prices immediately and then a phase in over the next 30 years an annual increase several times that of inflation.</li>
<li>There are various green energy sources but as of yet many of them are not competitive with a coal fired power plant. As we see here in BC, the subsidy of green power is seen as a bad thing - not that I would call the BC Hydro IPP contracts a subsidy as they will be hugely financially beneficially in a few years.</li>
<li>No government has the tiniest ability to deal with the situation. People have to accept that any serious solution is going to come from the private sector that sees a buck can be made.</li>
<li>Most of the public is in complete denial about what it will take to actually lower CO2 emissions.</li>
</ul>Bernardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15951619465188564252noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-151234363885961445.post-60543105166591292372011-03-15T10:15:00.000-07:002011-03-15T10:15:18.369-07:00One low carbon power source is off the tableAfter the tsunami hit the Fukushima nuclear power plants - there are a total of 10 reactors at two sites producing a peak of 9096 MW per hour - nuclear power worldwide has been dealt a serious blow.<br />
<br />
Global warming has offered a new life to nuclear power globally because once a reactor is up and running there are very few CO2 emissions. In general the environmental movement has not jumped on the nuclear band wagon, but given that the Kyoto protocol calls for a drop in CO2 emissions in developed countries and nukes achieve that, many countries have ramped up plans for new nuclear power plants<br />
<br />
Since the late 1980s the rate of new nuclear power reactors globally has remained steady at about 420. Basically the near disaster at <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident">Three Mile Island</a> in 1979 and the actual melt down at <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster">Chernobyl</a> in 1986 ended the expansion of nuclear power. It has only been with the rise in concern about global warming that the expansion of nuclear power has come back. There are now numerous plans around the world to build large numbers of new reactors. 2008, 2009 and 2010 saw the start of 10, 12, and 15 new reactors. At teh end of 2010 there were 441 nuclear power plants in operation and 63 under construction.<br />
<br />
And then there was a tsunami.<br />
<br />
On its own, the Fukushima nuclear disaster would be worldwide news, but it is only one part of the earthquake-tsunami. It is not only the Fukushima plants, but the Onagawa and Tokai plants that had problems as well. It also has highlighted the fact that in 2007 the<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashiwazaki-Kariwa_Nuclear_Power_Plant"> Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant</a> suffered some damage in a small earthquake. The same happened in 2008 at the Kurihara Nuclear Power Plant.<br />
<br />
The idea that nuclear power is safe is not nearly as certain as people thought a couple of weeks ago.<br />
<br />
The problems in 2007 and 2008 in Japan highlight the relative danger of nuclear power plants and earthquakes and this does not take very large earthquakes. The potential of a major nuclear disaster in the event of a major earthquake seems to be almost certain.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhccYQvfvyT3kwKyEqK-ejeiObNAvoSjw0MpKM_RcbJbKSakc2DlD2ycB9-3Zjt7CCcSr7gUnXdl-5UhUO2DYVgo1bQ8x_Uhr9Zcrd-9M-W5J2K7cAflAHEc-fqxBc_5xgiWX2tLQt_YuW4/s1600/Diablo_Canyon_NPP_above.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="212" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhccYQvfvyT3kwKyEqK-ejeiObNAvoSjw0MpKM_RcbJbKSakc2DlD2ycB9-3Zjt7CCcSr7gUnXdl-5UhUO2DYVgo1bQ8x_Uhr9Zcrd-9M-W5J2K7cAflAHEc-fqxBc_5xgiWX2tLQt_YuW4/s320/Diablo_Canyon_NPP_above.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Diablo Canyon Power Plant in California</td></tr>
</tbody></table>Within the region of the Cascadia subduction zone, there is one nuclear power plant, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_Generating_Station">Columbia Generating Station</a> in Richland Washington. There was a second one, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_Nuclear_Power_Plant">Trojan Nuclear Power Plant</a> in Oregon, which closed in 1992 after only 16 years of operation. Of bigger concern is the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant">Diablo Canyon Power Plant</a> in California. It may survive an earthquake, but what about a tsunami?<br />
<br />
Diablo Canyon was designed and built before there was a lot of thinking of megathrust earthquakes of tsunamis.<br />
<br />
Nuclear power is not likely to be dead, but it has been hit with a serious blow and is unlikely to recover anytime soon if there is a complete meltdown of the Fukushima power plant.Bernardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15951619465188564252noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-151234363885961445.post-17266971079460859652010-10-27T11:19:00.000-07:002010-10-27T11:19:08.209-07:00Green power projects, now what?There is a "perfect storm" brewing with respect to green power production in BC.<br />
<br />
<br />
<ul><li>BC Hydro is once again in full control of the transmission grid</li>
<li>BC Hydro has started down the Site C project path and has become blinkered to all other power sources</li>
<li>The BC Hydro corporate culture is once again strongly for large projects and against small private projects</li>
<li>The NDP has made it clear that it is not open to the idea of more private power</li>
<li>The recent cabinet shuffle is going to mean months of uncertainty about who can make what decisions and as we get closer May 2013 the time between the permission to go ahead and the next government coming to power is too short to get into the ground and underway.</li>
</ul><br />
<br />
These five factors could see a dramatic slowing in more green power coming online in BC. We will see an ongoing slowing in the green power business for the next four to five years. What will push a resurgence in the business in the future is a growing demand in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Interconnection">Western Interconnect</a> for carbon neutral electrical power.<br />
<br />
Within five years there will be more demand to see coal fired power plants shut down and ideally gas fired ones as well. At the same time demand will be rising in this region of the grid. The ability of wind, geothermal, solar and wave to provide any significant portion of the power within the next decade is minimal. Nuclear is going to become very popular and there may even be some projects started, but the lead time for nuke is very long. The lead time for a large scale hydro project like Site C also takes years till it is online. There will be a large demand for green power that can quickly come online and only one affordable source, run of the river power.<br />
<br />
BC has a huge potential for run of the river power and no matter what happens in the next five years, the demand for this power will be there in 2015 even more so than now. It is unfortunate that the industry is likely to go through a number of years of troubles before the political climate changes.Bernardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15951619465188564252noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-151234363885961445.post-11808191389930310532010-08-31T16:43:00.000-07:002010-08-31T16:43:50.264-07:00Paint your roof white and save the world!<a href="http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/08/31/mtl-white-roofs.html">This is an interesting story from the CBC today</a><br />
<br />
<blockquote><i>All new roofs would be white under a Montreal borough's proposed bylaw aimed at taking advantage of a white roof's cooling effects.</i></blockquote><blockquote><i>Mayor François Croteau of <a href="http://ville.montreal.qc.ca/portal/page?_pageid=40,1980105&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL">Rosemont-La Petite-Patrie</a> wants to make white roofs mandatory on new buildings. Roofs requiring repairs would have to be painted white as well.</i></blockquote><blockquote><i>Croteau's idea is supported by a Concordia University engineering professor, who says all the world's roofs should be changed to cooling colours.</i></blockquote><blockquote><i>"Ten metres squared of white roof is equivalent, in cooling the globe, the equivalent to one tonne of [carbon dioxide]," Prof. Hashem Akbari says.</i></blockquote><blockquote><i>Akbari is trying to persuade 100 of the world's largest cities to switch to light-coloured roofs. Changing all the roofs in the world would be equal to getting rid of all the world's cars for 20 years, he says.</i></blockquote><blockquote><i>If Croteau gets his way, many of his borough's roofs will be white within about 15 years.</i></blockquote><blockquote><i>The bylaw would not apply to buildings with peaked roofs, which many residential houses have.</i></blockquote><blockquote><i>Croteau said making the switch to white roofs would be more expensive in the short term. But, he said, the cost would be offset eventually because white roofs are more durable.</i></blockquote><blockquote><i>Councillors in Rosemont-La Petite-Patrie will vote on the proposal in October</i>.</blockquote>In looking for this story I found some of the research that backs up the reasoning,<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_roof"> I had no idea of the impact that changing the colour of the roof could have</a>. If there were a wholesale transition to white roofs, there would be a <a href="http://www.science20.com/news_articles/white_roofs_could_reduce_urban_heat_island_effect_33_percent">33% reduction</a> in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island">urban heat island effect</a>.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2010/08/05/14936191.html">Sarah Thomson</a>, candidate for mayor of Toronto is <a href="http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2010/08/05/14936191.html">backing this idea as well</a>, though she is running a distant third of fourth.<br />
<br />
You can even <a href="http://www.ornl.gov/sci/roofs+walls/facts/CoolCalcEnergy.htm">calculate the savings </a>from moving to a light coloured roof from a dark one.<br />
<br />
I like the idea of showing people that is saves money and not any sort of forced mandate.Bernardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15951619465188564252noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-151234363885961445.post-23297804478212654292010-08-06T16:52:00.000-07:002010-08-06T16:52:13.319-07:00The Economics of Site CI am looking into the economics of Site C and I am interested in anything that anyone can point me in the direction of to make some real estimates of the cost of construction, operation and such.<br />
<br />
Things such as:<br />
Cost of the dam<br />
Cost of the transmission lines<br />
Cost of the rebuild of highway #29<br />
Cost of the consultation process<br />
Cost of replacing the agricultural lands<br />
Cost of mitigation of erosion of the high river side banks by the resevoir<br />
Cost of accommodating First Nation rights.<br />
<br />
Please send me anything you might know of.<br />
<br />
<a href="mailto:bern99@ymail.com">bern99@ymail.com</a>Bernardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15951619465188564252noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-151234363885961445.post-1644407096729366252010-08-06T10:28:00.000-07:002010-08-06T10:28:55.404-07:00A Video showing Site C ReservoirOver the next few weeks I am going to take a closer look at the Site C dam project and consider what impacts it may have. <br />
<br />
This is a video by the <a href="http://www.treaty8.bc.ca/welcome.php">Treaty 8 Tribal Association</a> showing the proposed reservoir for the Site C project. The reservoir will stretch from Fort St John to Hudson's Hope. <br />
<br />
One expense that comes to mind after watching the video is the cost of having to move Highway #29. It looks like 30-40 km of the highway would have to be rebuilt and four major bridges. My quick estimate is that about 100 acres of land that will need to acquired for the road right of way.<br />
<br />
So what will cost to rebuild this highway? My quick estimate is between $500,000,000 and $1,000,000,000. The cost is mainly due to the bridges that will need to be built. Is this cost factored into the cost of the dam?<br />
<br />
<br />
<object height="385" width="640"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8Rem7y28UJM&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8Rem7y28UJM&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>Bernardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15951619465188564252noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-151234363885961445.post-88982491190100172882010-07-20T18:09:00.000-07:002010-07-20T18:09:31.725-07:00Interesting Program to allow low income homes become more energy efficientI found this on Craigslist today and thought it might be of interest to people:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><i>The Government Wants to Help You Renovate!</i></blockquote><blockquote><i>The Energy Conservation Assistance Program (ECAP) provides BC Hydro residential account holders on limited budgets with a home energy evaluation, the installation of energy saving products, and personalized energy efficiency advice. All of this is free of change to the participant.</i></blockquote><blockquote><i>Every home is different. Your home evaluator will determine which energy efficiency upgrades your home is eligible for. The installation of some products may require multiple visits.</i></blockquote><blockquote><i>Eligibility</i></blockquote><blockquote><i>To qualify for this program you must be a BC Hydro residential customer with moderate to high electricity consumption (more than 8,000 kWh/yr, which is approximately an electricity bill exceeding $500 per year) living in the Lower Mainland, on Vancouver Island, or the Southern Interior.</i></blockquote><blockquote><i>Applicants must provide proof of income for every member of the household 18 years or older by providing a Notice of Assessment from the Canada Revenue Agency. Your combined household income must be below the Low-Income Cut-Off (LICO) as published by Statistics Canada. Low-income cutoffs vary by where you live (population) and by the number of people in your household.</i></blockquote><blockquote><i>You can view the LICO table on the Energy Conservation Assistance Program application form. This can be found on </i><a href="http://www.citygreen.ca/bc-hydro-energy-conservation-assistance-program-ecap"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;"><i>www.citygreen.ca/bc-hydro-energy-conservation-assistance-program-ecap</i></span></a></blockquote><blockquote><i>Contact Information</i></blockquote><blockquote><i>Glenys Verhulst </i><a href="mailto:ecoenergy@citygreen.ca"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;"><i>ecoenergy@citygreen.ca</i></span></a><i> (250) 381 9995 x11</i></blockquote><blockquote><i>Eligibility: If you do not qualify for the ECAP program, you can order an Energy Saving Kit, sign up for a home energy assessment for LiveSmart BC grants, or check out the Affordable Warmth incentive database for other programs to help you make your home more energy efficient.</i></blockquote>Bernardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15951619465188564252noreply@blogger.com0