Jump to content

Bob Landell

Members
  • Posts

    5
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Bob Landell's Achievements

  1. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/15/new-york-city-is-banning-natural-gas-hookups-for-new-buildings.html
  2. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/15/new-york-city-is-banning-natural-gas-hookups-for-new-buildings.html
  3. Exactly. BC is not on track to half its GHGs by 2030. Climate is a life support issue that requires a war time response. Regulation will be required in addition to economic measures like Gordon Campbell’s carbon tax. From CNBC: The New York City Council has voted to pass legislation banning the use of natural gas in most new buildings. Under the law, construction projects submitted for approval after 2027 must use sources like electricity for stoves, space heaters and water boilers instead of gas or oil. The bill would cut 2.1 million tons of carbon emissions by 2040, equivalent to the annual emissions of 450,000 cars.
  4. Exactly. BC is not on track to half its GHGs by 2030. Climate is a life support issue that requires a war time response. Regulation will be required in addition to economic measures like Gordon Campbell’s carbon tax. From CNBC: The New York City Council has voted to pass legislation banning the use of natural gas in most new buildings. Under the law, construction projects submitted for approval after 2027 must use sources like electricity for stoves, space heaters and water boilers instead of gas or oil. The bill would cut 2.1 million tons of carbon emissions by 2040, equivalent to the annual emissions of 450,000 cars.
  5. Yes, the province regulates this. You’re likely right that pressure from large mini’s would help. Thx
  6. Yes, the province regulates this. You’re likely right that pressure from large mini’s would help. Thx
  7. Hydrogen and RNG gas blends are being touted as a way to reduce emissions from burning gas for heat. Are they an effective strategy or waste of time and money? IN BRITISH COLUMBIA, the consumption of natural gas is 165 percent larger than the consumption of electricity. If you take transportation out of the equation, fossil gas and biofuels account for over 70 percent of BC’s energy use—most of it for heating. Reducing heating emissions will, therefore, be crucial to the success of BC’s climate plan. BC is asking gas utilities to halve their GHG emissions by 2030—but is still expanding gas distribution, hooking up new homes and businesses, and subsidizing fracking and LNG. This article examines a Fortis proposal to blend (by volume) 15 percent Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) and 20 percent blue hydrogen (BH2) into their existing gas grid. Gas blending would allow the existing gas distribution and end-use appliances to remain in use, but significant new infrastructure would be required. A schematic overview of the proposal is shown in the following graphic: The potential for successful emission reductions does exist. For example, climate progress could be made if efficiency and electrification eliminate the majority of all BC gas heating loads, and more RNG is collected from existing methane waste sources, and if the hydrogen used is made from water, rather than natural gas. On the other hand, gas blending could prove to be a climate dead end—a gas company growth strategy that delays electrification and prolongs methane and CO2 emissions. Are provincial government, Utilities Commission and Fortis plans for combustion compatible with CleanBC climate goals? The answers to the following questions could provide an indication. Should RNG be used in this way? Capturing RNG from organic waste has the very real climate advantage of reducing atmospheric methane. Fortis has been adding RNG to its grid for some years now. As such, it seems an attractive option. The available volume would have to be increased from landfill, agricultural, forestry and industrial wastes. Collecting the RNG from these far-flung sources would involve new infrastructure, and be much more labour intensive than the existing collection of natural gas. Methane leakage would also have to be eliminated. Energy cost adjustments would be required. If natural gas subsidies were eliminated, and the full carbon price of $170 per tonne was applied, RNG could be more cost competitive with natural gas. This, however, would also make electrical heat a more attractive option to gas. Considering such factors, it appears that RNG would be a better climate solution for decarbonizing shipping and other hard-to-abate sectors, rather than for heating loads that can be electrified. Should hydrogen be used in this way? Blending 20 percent green hydrogen with natural gas reduces GHGs by 7 percent at best. This is because, among other issues, pure hydrogen has one-third the energy per unit volume of natural gas. Fortis, being a gas utility, is probably hoping to use blue hydrogen made from natural gas feedstock. This would introduce efficiency losses through methane extraction, hydrogen production, Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), and gas-powered equipment. The following is a very high-level summary of the main hydrogen colours: As with RNG, hydrogen is expensive, in low supply, and would be a more effective climate measure if used for the decarbonization of air travel, steel and fertilizer manufacturing, etcetera, rather than for heating. What climate impact can we expect from the proposed gas blending? Reducing methane emissions is our best tool to keep global warming below 1.5C in the crucial next 8 years. Gas blending would put extra natural gas and RNG in play—and open the door to more potential fugitive methane emissions. If we make some very generous assumptions—such as no lost opportunity for other hard-to-abate sectors, no added methane leakage, no energy penalty for transporting hydrogen, and no gas-fired processing equipment—then the proposed gas blending has the theoretical potential to reduce affected gas heating GHGs by 24 percent. This, unfortunately, is far from BC’s net 100 percent reduction goal for 2050. If gas blending is seen as a stepping stone to pure hydrogen—moving from virtually no climate benefit over the first number of years, to Net Zero 2050—then existing pipes, compressors, burners and motors will need to be replaced for use with pure hydrogen. When do the substantial cost and safety concerns of this transformation turn up on the balance sheet? How much extra gas will have been leaked and burned in the meantime? From a climate science perspective, the GHG improvements of this gas blending proposal appear to be “too little; too late” when compared to electrification. What are the human health concerns of continued (or expanded) combustion? Oxides of nitrogen and ozone from natural gas combustion already cause significant indoor air quality problems, contributing to juvenile asthma, for example. Burning hydrogen can be worse than natural gas in this regard. Industrial furnaces and boilers that burn hydrogen or hydrogen-rich mixtures may be fitted with selective catalytic reduction units to reduce NOx, but that option does not exist for residential/commercial furnaces and stoves. Are there safety concerns? Hydrogen leaks more than natural gas due to its low density and high diffusivity. It has a wide range of flammable concentrations in air, and lower ignition energy than natural gas. It can ignite easily. It also burns with a nearly invisible flame, especially in daylight. Natural gas stenching agents, such as mercaptans, are not compatible with hydrogen. Will this create problems for gas leak detection? CO2 pipeline safety is a concern associated with sequestration. About 100 people already die globally each year from CO2 accidents. Are there other issues to consider? BC already expects a massive increase in fracking for LNG. What additional water/air pollution, biodiversity, Indigenous reconciliation, earthquake and tailing pond cleanup impacts and costs can be expected as a result of the proposed gas blending? Is there an alternative? The well-understood, proven, safe and clean alternative to gas heat is electric heat. Direct use of renewable electricity for resistance heating is much more efficient than manufacturing hydrogen, and then converting it into heat. Heat pumps for space and water heating are better yet—providing 3 kWh of heat for every kWh of electricity input. BC Hydro’s new Electrification Plan (September 2021) would contribute only 4 percent to BC’s annual GHG emissions reduction target for 2030. Dylan Heerema, senior policy advisor for Ecotrust Canada, has calculated that if BC’s Electrification Plan succeeds, it will reduce BC’s total emissions by only 1.3 percent. This won’t get BC to its climate targets. Efficiency and electrification need the type of political drive and ambition that went into launching BC’s LNG industry. Reaching BC’s climate pledge will involve some degree of disruption and cost. For example, a commitment to electrification comes with the need for a larger power system, but the size of the change can be controlled by pre-work to reduce heating demand. If Canada needed to double its electricity generation, a recent report by the Pembina Institute argues that sharing power between the provinces via integrated national grid inter-ties would help immensely. Such a grid would optimize the location and types of new power and storage sources; require less overall backup power reserves; save both capital and operating expenditures; and produce more opportunities for storing and reselling excess US power. Perhaps most important, it would also result in rapid climate action while avoiding the creation of new technologies and regulations. Given the urgency of addressing the 1.5C global warming goal by 2030, and the lead time required to research, test, regulate and scale carbon capture and storage, blue hydrogen, and new RNG sources, etc, gas blending does not appear to be a reason to maintain or expand combustion heat. Rather than create uncertainty about electrifying heating and cooking, it is time to stop hooking up new BC homes and businesses to gas. Bob Landell is an energy management consultant and climate-concerned grandfather living in Victoria, BC.
  8. A new alliance of oil-sands producers is hoping to get $50 billion in government funds to use on technologies whose long term net climate benefits are questionable. SHINY SILVER BULLETS like carbon capture, “clean” and “low carbon” blue hydrogen, or next generation nuclear have the potential to distract attention, while emissions continue to heat the planet. They could also attract climate subsidies away from proven solutions, and provide a lifeline to oil sands, LNG and other polluters. Provincially, BC has launched its new Hydrogen Strategy which contains many good ideas, but supports blue hydrogen production, and the blending of hydrogen into the natural gas grid. These two goals could easily prolong reliance on fossil gas and contribute to missing another climate “commitment.” Federally, there is a danger that the transition away from fossil fuels will be delayed by the perversion of erstwhile green strategies. Canada’s multi-billion-dollar Net Zero Accelerator funding could, in effect, become a fossil fuel subsidy. Tax credits for companies that invest in carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) could support more dirty infrastructure at a time when it should clearly be shrinking. Five companies (Canadian Natural Resources, Cenovus Energy, Imperial, MEG Energy and Suncor Energy) that produce 90 per cent of Canada’s oil sands bitumen are currently lobbying government to support their Oil Sands Pathways to Net Zero initiative. This new alliance proposes to develop, among other things, Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage (CCUS), “clean” hydrogen, and small modular nuclear reactors (SMR) as ways to offset their carbon footprint. They are looking for government support—to the tune of approximately $50 billion through 2050. Syncrude's Mildred Lake site, plant and tailings ponds Fort McMurray, Alberta Fossil fuel companies have been aware of their products’ dangerous global heating for decades, but have consistently undermined mainstream science’s message about the need to reduce combustion. Global CO2 emissions continue to rise. Regardless of whether the alliance is motivated by climate concern, or by self-preservation, the pressing question is this: six years after Justin Trudeau’s promise to end fossil fuel subsidies, how should the government respond to their appeal for $50 billion in taxpayer support? The oil and gas industry is the largest source of Canadian greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), even without taking into account its eventual burning outside Canada. It represents 26 per cent of national emissions; more than transport, which also burns oil products. Given the urgent need for climate action, certain industry and government proposals don’t make sense. Using captured CO2 for Enhanced Oil Recovery (extracting more oil) while the world struggles to decarbonize is one. Giving CCUS a disproportionate amount of taxpayer climate subsidy at the expense of electrification or renewables is another. If the oil sands companies’ alliance is planning to use fossil gas to power the CCUS process, and as a hydrogen feedstock, and to power hydrogen production, then the impacts of this extra gas must be acknowledged. Fracking for extra gas consumes and toxifies huge volumes of water, while triggering significant earthquakes. Extracting more gas means more methane leaks, and methane already causes over 25 percent of global heating. Burning more gas to power CCUS would add to non-carbon air pollution and negative health effects. The substantial cleanup cost for orphaned and abandoned wells, tailing ponds, and infrastructure—too often payed by the taxpayer—would rise proportionately. As governments scramble to reduce energy use, the sizeable energy needs of CCUS must be considered. For a power plant, CCUS increases the energy requirement by 20 to 25 per cent, while reducing its capacity. Building the pipelines, transporting the CO2, and creating secure permanent storage would also require energy. CO2 pipelines also pose risks from explosive ruptures of super cold CO2 and asphyxiation. Canada must be realistic about the reliability, benefits, costs and diminishing returns associated with oil sand CCUS. Very little CO2 is permanently captured in practice. Even if 100 per cent of the CO2 was captured in the bitumen extraction process (which it certainly is not), CCUS would do nothing for at least 70 per cent of emissions. This majority of bitumen’s GHG’s is emitted to our atmosphere during refining and eventual combustion in other countries of final use. “Clean” hydrogen is also proposed by the alliance. The climate impact (cleanliness) of hydrogen depends entirely on how it is produced. Green hydrogen —electrolyzed from water using renewable energy—is clean. Blue hydrogen is produced by the combination of steam and fossil gas. It requires more CCUS, and is not clean. At the moment, blue hydrogen is cheaper than the green option, so long as you ignore the social cost of the leaked methane, fracking damage, pulmonary disease, et cetera. Green hydrogen is expected to be cheaper in the near future, as the cost of renewables continues to plummet. The intended use of hydrogen is also relevant. When used in a fuel cell, it creates energy with only water and air as exhaust products. When burned, however, it can emit toxic oxides of nitrogen. Blending 15 per cent hydrogen with 85 per cent fossil gas is proposed to reduce GHGs. This practice could serve to prolong the use of fossil gas, which could have a net negative effect on the climate. From a gas company perspective, though, 85 per cent is a lot better than 0 per cent. The issue of subsidy support for CCUS and hydrogen can be confusing because these technologies can have a valid climate role in limited applications that are hard to decarbonize. Carbon capture makes sense for industries like cement and chemicals, but is not the best solution for industries that can be electrified or decarbonized. Similarly, hydrogen is a good decarbonizer for fertilizer, clean steel, long haul transportation, and refining fossil fuel for non-combustion feedstocks, but little else. Meeting Canada’s net zero pledge will require the majority of emissions to be displaced by efficiency, electric vehicles, heat pumps, electric heat for industry, and induction cooking. Should these electrified loads be powered by small modular nuclear reactors (SMR), one of the technologies the oil sands alliance is hoping to develop with government help, or by renewables including wind, solar, hydro, and geothermal? The cost of energy produced by nuclear is already higher than energy from wind or solar with batteries. SMRs, if feasible, will take too long to plan, navigate NIMBY opponents, obtain insurance and permits, and to actually build. They are expensive to manage and operate, and to decommission at end-of-life. Their cooling systems entrap fish, and warm lakes. SMRs have serious weapons proliferation, meltdown, mining, lung cancer and waste storage risks. Renewables have none of these drawbacks and are already tried and true. Despite fossil fuel production being at record highs, jobs and revenue into government coffers have dropped significantly over the last decade. Large subsidies would only lessen the industry’s net social contribution. Canada’s GHGs are 21 per cent higher than they were in 1990, and are still rising. This is by far the worst climate performance of any G7 country. Going forward, Canadian policy is on track to support oil and gas extraction that will eat up 16 per cent of the entire world’s 1.5C carbon budget. If the alliance’s proposed technologies are used as a pretext to further delay the transition to clean energy, then Canada could let its dwindling opportunity for effective climate action slip by. The growing severity of fires, storms and heat waves is showing us why we can no longer afford such a failure. Bob Landell is an energy management consultant and climate-concerned grandfather living in Victoria, BC.
×
×
  • Create New...