Topic
Math doesn't add up
Recall the report that compared the actual carbon intensity of both oil sands and conventional fuel, the one that said oil sands is 23 per cent worse for the climate.
According to the report's author, Stanford's Brandt, the actual carbon intensity of oil sands fuel should be somewhere around 107.3 g/MJ.
But the B.C. government considers all gasoline, oil sands or not, to have the same carbon intensity, 90.21 g/MJ.
Here is why that is a big deal. If you're a fuel supplier that puts only oil sands gasoline onto the provincial market, the true carbon intensity of your product would resemble Brandt's 107.3 g/MJ figure.
And reducing that number to the province's target of 73.82 g/MJ by 2020 means your fuel supply has to get about 31 per cent cleaner, a serious undertaking.
You'd have to put real pressure on oil sands producers to clean up their acts, and start blending millions of litres of low carbon biofuels into your gasoline supply.
Instead, the B.C. government has decided that the carbon intensity of your oil sands gasoline is going to be 90.21 g/MJ on paper, not the more accurate 107.3 g/MJ.
The government has essentially granted you, the oil sands fuel supplier, a huge freebie. Because now you only have to make your gasoline 18 per cent cleaner in order to reach the 2020 target, instead of 31 per cent.
That's also 17 grams of carbon per mega-joule wiped off the province's carbon books. But not out of the atmosphere.
Those emissions are still being pumped out of upgrader smokestacks and vehicle exhaust pipes, contributing to rising global temperatures.
Let's assume that half of the 4.4 billion litres of gasoline consumed in B.C. each year comes from Alberta's oil sands (a not unreasonable estimate).
Arbitrarily reducing that gasoline's carbon intensity by 16 per cent, as the B.C.'s fuel standard does, ignores annual emissions equivalent to those from 255,647 passenger vehicles‚ roughly three times the number counted on the streets of Kelowna, B.C., in 2007.
Tyee Solutions Society graphic by Alex Grunenfelder.
You could expect a similar, though slightly smaller, figure for diesel. (A sidebar accompanying this story shows The Tyee Solutions Society calculations.)
"This is a gaping loophole," Environmental Defence program manager Gillian McEachern told The Tyee Solutions Society. "We're concerned that B.C.'s fuel standard won't achieve what the province says it will."
BC policy a 'hundred pound weakling'?
The scenario described above may be extreme, but it's where the B.C.'s road fuel sector is heading.
The province gets the majority of its gasoline and diesel from three Edmonton-area refineries.
By 2012, when B.C.'s fuel standard first comes into effect, suppliers have to ensure that five per cent of the fuel they're putting onto the market comes from renewable sources.
Barring the large-scale adoption of electric vehicles, that effectively commits them to crop-based bio-fuels such as ethanol.
Of major concern here is something called "indirect land-use changes", which refers to additional emissions released by, say, tearing up carbon-trapping forests to grow new fuels.
"In some cases," the B.C. government acknowledged in 2009, "[indirect land-use changes] can increase the [carbon intensity] of biofuels to the point where the biofuels have greater [greenhouse gas] impact than the fuel they replace."
Ideally, the next generation of bio-fuels would be far less damaging to the climate. They'd be grown on existing but underused agricultural land, or produced from algae in ponds or the desert.
Meanwhile California is incorporating indirect land-use changes into its fuel standard legislation, providing market signals that will encourage development of such lower-carbon options.-- G.D.
Two of these (owned respectively by Shell and Suncor) process exclusively oil sands crude, while the other (owned by Imperial Oil) relies mostly on light, conventional oil.
The remainder of B.C.'s fuel needs are met largely from a Burnaby refinery operated by Chevron, which refines a mix of oil sands and conventional.
As supplies of the latter continue to dwindle across Alberta, the province's vast bitumen deposits will almost surely make up the difference.
Natural Resources Canada predicted as much in a 2008 report, stating that the oil processed by western Canadian refineries "will continue to get heavier in the coming decade."
Indeed, a recent federal agency report estimated that oil sands production is set to triple by 2035, while conventional Canadian production is tailing off.
As fuel suppliers bring more and more oil sands fuel onto the market, the carbon gap created by the B.C. government's fuel standard on average will also grow, leaving tonnes of emissions unaccounted for.
California's low carbon fuel standard (as well as pending European Union legislation) contains a solution to this loophole.
Instead of just one carbon intensity value for gasoline, and another for diesel, policymakers are creating a separate, relatively higher oil sands value.
Suppliers are free to sell whatever kind of gasoline and diesel they want. But if they intend to meet fuel standard targets, and avoid fines, they'll probably try to sell as little oil sands fuel as possible.
In theory this will have a cascading effect, with oil sands producers pushing hard for innovations that make their operations less damaging to the climate.
There's already evidence this could be happening. Cenovus Energy Inc., a major oil sands producer, announced this October that several of its operations now have a low enough carbon footprint to meet California's standard.
But those types of changes are unlikely to be spurred by B.C.'s policy, which "does not incentivize refiners to switch to lower-emissions crudes or to pursue energy efficiency improvements," according to a 2010 IHS-CERA report.
"Compared to the muscular version pioneered by Governor Schwarzenegger in California," said Environmental Defence's McEachern, British Columbia's policy is "a hundred pound weakling."
Industry fights back
You might think that western Canada's largest refiners would support a "weakling" fuel standard that doesn't target Alberta's oil sands.
But at the recent Pollution Probe-hosted conference in Victoria, the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute, a refining industry trade group, still fought hard against the legislation.
"The target is very optimistic," reads a presentation from Ted Stoner, the group's western Canadian head.
And in a sense the oil and gas industry is right. Its members don't necessarily control whether B.C. embraces electric vehicles, or develops the truly low-carbon bio-fuels deemed necessary to fight global warming (see sidebar).
Yet a tough low carbon fuel standard, such as the one being implemented in California, could potentially force innovative responses to those changes and help bridge the transition to a clean energy economy.
As it stands now, that doesn't seem too likely. ![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
BC's 'Cleaner' Fuel Standard: Reality Check: Page 2 of 2
21
Login or register to post comments
seth
1 year ago
simple solutions all nuclear
First free the gas and nuke the tar sands.
Tar sands crude would be the cleanest in the world if Alberta nuked the tar sands replacing gas generated steam with nuclear steam, saving big bucks and eliminating production GHG's at the same time.
To do the trick 8 big mass produced Westinghouse AP-1000 reactors or 300 hot tub sized Hyperion units ($400 kw of steam) reactors would be needed. The total cost of the zero GHG, clean and green Hyperion units is $9 billion. Natural gas at $4 a thousand cu ft is $3 billion a year. Payback - three years.
http://talknuclear.ca/index.php/2011/08/size-matters-small-nuclear-reactors-and-albertas-oil-sands-development/
Hundreds of Albertans die every year and tens of thousands sickened from Alberta's coal plant air pollution. While nuking the tar sands nuke the coal at the same time. Save money save lives.
BC could like Utah, expand its motor vehicle CNG program to use the surplus gas for autofuel at Terasen's home delivery price of 30 cents a liter equivalent instead of Oil Billionaire T Boone Pickens' corrupt Clean Energy franchise charging a buck a liter. This would be a condition of service for Terasen.
The freed up tar sands gas would be also be available to make CNG, methanol, DME (propane), and synfuel transportation fuels as we transition to nuclear produced synfuels and electric vehicles.
Check out Shell's Pearl experience with its $35 a barrel first of kind natural gas to liquids plant in Qatar. A plant built in BC could make diesel out of natural gas at $30 a barrel. When needs be it can easily be switched to nuclear hydrogen and CO2 extraction.
BC can start the process by getting Canada's energy ministers together and commit to a purchase of 30 needed now new Westinghouse AP1000 nukes with 8 nukes required just to green up the Tar Sands and 15 to replace coal at a rough cost of $60B followed by orders for 130 more as factory production gets in full swing.
Canada's GHG emission's gone within 10 years with an enormous saving to the taxpayer. Almost overnight we end unemployment, the global warming/peak oil menace, save the lives of thousands of Canadians every year from coal/gas air pollution and create the greatest construction boom in history.
The only thing in the way is Big Oil which owns our politicians.
blackie
1 year ago
Seth
I think that's a brilliant formula and would solve a lot of problems -- but it will get nuked by the anti-nukes.
Also, the GTL idea is under active consideration now by SASOL in partnership with Talisman -- but I bet the plant would go to Alberta. That would give you sulphur-free diesel, and as long as the natgas price is under $4 it's economic.
It's hard to know who is most opposed to innovation -- big-oil or big-enviro. I suspect it's a wash
snert
1 year ago
Knee jerk reactions.
This article illustrates precisely why government should not go wild with cock-eyed plans to save the environment. There appears to be no attempt to look at the big picture and all that will happen if the plan is adopted is that it will reduce the competitiveness of any business that relies on carbon based fuels.
It also would have been nice to see an explanation of just how one de-tunes a fuel without making it less efficient therefore requiring more of it to do the same job.
Granville
1 year ago
Low-carbon gasoline is a mirage. It can't happen.
Gasoline is a hydrocarbon; CxHy. The only way you can mess with the chemistry is to reduce the molecular weight which changes the octane value.
The most immediate benefit would come from reduced sulphur in diesel fuel, and increased gas mileage on all passenger cars.
The old Fords got 22 mpg. They travelled at much lower speeds, but the passengers enjoyed the view. If we took all the extraneous crap away from today's vehicles and reduced them to the basic A-to-B car, with standard gearboxes, we would get 30% more mileage. I can't get a standard gearshift vehicle, even a Jeep. Automatic gearboxes use 20% more gas than a standard.
Why not take a step back and save money? The automatic gearshift only allows drivers more distractions, and it mkes them LAZY.
There is one suggestion that we KNOW would work. Let's do it. Women can apply their make-up before they leave home, not during the trip, at 90 kmh, just before they die.
They would also have to SHUT THEIR CELLPHONES OFF. Every single cell phone using driver I see these days is a woman. I have reported four this year, and I hope they were all prosecuted.
blackie
1 year ago
Granville
Ooohh. I think you're going to get it in the neck for some of those rather sexist comments. But you're wrong about today's automatics. Mileage numbers are about the same now, and in fact they're probably better than for a manual if the driver isn't particularly competent shifting. If the highway speed limit was dropped to 80 from 110 -- and strictly enforced -- gasoline consumption would drop significantly for all vehicles.
seth
1 year ago
antinukes
"..it will get nuked by the anti-nukes."
There is no cogent argument against nuclear power. Cost, terrorism, proliferation, waste disposal, meltdowns, and fuel supply issues have all been resolved. With all the facts on the nuclear side, studies have shown that when the public becomes informed on Nuclear power support becomes overwhelming.
Still even despite the almost continuous spew of anti nuke disinformation from Big Oil, their MSM subsidiary and astroturf organizations like Greenpeace, support for nukes is more than 50% in BC.
No citizen that takes more than a few hours to study the energy options from a wide variety of pro and con sources readily available on the innernet would conclude otherwise.
It would be really simple for governments and utilities that actually cared about the future of their country more than lucrative Big Oil campaign donations to generate nuke support by educating the public on nuclear. After a few months, and a few debates where antinuke activists get handed their butt by good ole Seth and Ok James Hansen, public support would hover close to 100% and BCHydro's nuke build could begin.
infolark
1 year ago
fuel standards and government
As long as out governments are in love withlarge oil companies we will dance to their tune of large profits. In 2000 the feds reduced the refining standards in Canada because their long running contract with refineries was up and the oil giants wanted to equal profits with what our government was making. In ontario's "Emmission testing program" testing cars showed the results, the propane and natural gas vehicles suddenly developed emmissions! On investigation Imperial oil spilled the beans , everyone in the industry knew about this , auto manufactures put additional proms into computors in cars and raised car prices without telling the public , government decided that propane and natural gas vehicles had to be tested for they were emitting pollution contrary to programs funded by tax dollars promoting for the previous three years a switch to propane zero emmission vechicles and get rebates of up to two thousand dollars of tax dollars per car for converting. Then wam the government , the oil industry and auto manufactureres covertly did this all so large oil companies could make more money and our federal government would not give up any of its money it was charging in royalities and gas taxes. California looked at and has led the world in emmission standards for years they do not go through just the motions of doing something --their systems work but why would our government follow something which works and learn from it, and with our canadian ingeniuty better it? Why, because of the Harper Government's greed and desire for Mr. Harper to be arrogent and try and impress the world that he and his minions like Ms. Clark(quasi liberal) are leading the world in being the world's best leaders-- an ego thing which bears no resembliance to reality . I guess while Mr. Harper, Ms. Clark and large oil companies go on getting what they want regardless of reality we as Canadians will see out Country continue to ignore third world conditions inside our own country grow and watch our politians give millions of our tax dollars to other countrys, build our millitary to support the USA and let the rich corporations dictate what happens in Canada while all the while our polution sition gets worse .
Granville
1 year ago
Hi Blackie:
Thanks for the correction, but I don't trust numbers from the auto industry. I still believe that a good driver can get more kmg from a standard rather than an automatic tranny.
As for the "sexist comments" it is quite true that every single cell phone-using driver I have seen this year - and there are about ten of them - was a woman. They really do have a death-wish disguised as a need for multi-tasking.
If the speed limit were dropped to 80 kmh, it would never be observed. The cars and the roads are built for speed. If the cars had a governor on the motor that only allowed them to be put on partial throttle and with an upper speed limit, that would be different.
There is absolutely NO reason for radar traps today. Cars could be built with an electronic speed log that could be downloaded by fixed roadside receivers. They would be able to scan the driving speed history of every car that went by, and they would be able to obtain a conviction against the owner for any violation, anywhere any time.
We have the technology; it would be a major invasion of privacy, but why are we allowing people to drie after their licences have been taken away?
It is a matter of time before cars are equipped with driving licence rfid chips that immobilise the vehicle unless the driver's licence is clean and valid. The car or the licence could be programmed with a personalised upper speed limit if the owner had speeding tickets. They have had car stickers like that in Germany for decades.
We are within a hair's breadth of applying these technologies to provide safer roads, and lower gas consumption. It is just a matter of time and the number of deaths before they are introduced.
By the way, in some countries, if you run down a pedestrian, you do not stop, lest the locals take revenge on you. We are not that bad in Canada, but some of the recent drunk driving accidents make one think.
Granville
1 year ago
Hi Blackie:
Thanks for the correction, but I don't trust numbers from the auto industry. I still believe that a good driver can get more kmg from a standard rather than an automatic tranny.
As for the "sexist comments" it is quite true that every single cell phone-using driver I have seen this year - and there are about ten of them - was a woman. They really do have a death-wish disguised as a need for multi-tasking.
If the speed limit were dropped to 80 kmh, it would never be observed. The cars and the roads are built for speed. If the cars had a governor on the motor that only allowed them to be put on partial throttle and with an upper speed limit, that would be different.
There is absolutely NO reason for radar traps today. Cars could be built with an electronic speed log that could be downloaded by fixed roadside receivers. They would be able to scan the driving speed history of every car that went by, and they would be able to obtain a conviction against the owner for any violation, anywhere any time.
We have the technology; it would be a major invasion of privacy, but why are we allowing people to drie after their licences have been taken away?
It is a matter of time before cars are equipped with driving licence rfid chips that immobilise the vehicle unless the driver's licence is clean and valid. The car or the licence could be programmed with a personalised upper speed limit if the owner had speeding tickets. They have had car stickers like that in Germany for decades.
We are within a hair's breadth of applying these technologies to provide safer roads, and lower gas consumption. It is just a matter of time and the number of deaths before they are introduced.
By the way, in some countries, if you run down a pedestrian, you do not stop, lest the locals take revenge on you. We are not that bad in Canada, but some of the recent drunk driving accidents make one think.
Dan the socialist
1 year ago
There is no cogent argument
There is no cogent argument against nuclear power. Cost, terrorism, proliferation, waste disposal, meltdowns, and fuel supply issues have all been resolved.
========
Meltdowns? Really? What about Fukushima Daiichi ?
snert
1 year ago
Dan the socialist
Must be fun watching you try to get up the courage to cross a bridge knowing full well, as you do, that some of them have actually fallen down.....with people on them, no less.
Granville
1 year ago
Snert: Nuclear reactors are not bridges.
When a bridge fails, it might kill the people on the deck and that is it. When a nuclear plant fails, it might affect people for 1,000 years. None of the issues of nuclear plants have been resolved. The storage issue is just another cancer festering on the landscape.
Nora Farmer
1 year ago
The nuclear interests hoped to gain against coal
in the electricity generating market, hence its support for AGW. Fukushima has probably dashed the hopes of some for more uranium fueled reactors. Small neighborhood sized thorium reactors are a possibility, if one could get around the vested interests in uranium.
http://www.thorium.tv/en/thorium_reactor/thorium_reactor_1.php
Nora Farmer
1 year ago
BTW, there is no connection between how much CO2 is in the air
and temperature, There is a nice chart showing the disconnect here:
http://firsthandweather.com/blog/all-posts/global-warming-joe-bastardi
I hesitated to comment on the crazed bean-counter aspect of both the article and the people obsessing over the "carbon footprint" of the gas we consume, since true believers don't react well to facts, but what the heck. It is said a picture is worth a thousand words.
the real ODB
1 year ago
seth
"There is no cogent argument against nuclear power. Cost, terrorism, proliferation, waste disposal, meltdowns, and fuel supply issues have all been resolved." Really?!
Either you've been exposed to some shiny green stuff or you've been smoking too much green stuff!
That has to be one of the most moronic pieces of drivel I've ever read. And I thought the main stream, corporate media was the only place I'd find such drivel.
seth
1 year ago
Usual low info drivel
Fuku was a ancient 1950's designed reactor destroyed by criminals. Criminals or not a modern reactor would have survived just fine as did several other reactors just down the beach.
The average citizen of Denver gets more radiation exposure than a person would have received standing outside the front gates of reactor. Not a single person was injured. Not even one week evacuation was necessary much less a thousand years. In fact the only permanent damage was the deadly forever toxic scum from the oil refinery fire - you know the one they always displayed on your TeeVee's in the background when discussing the Fuku reactor disaster.
I suppose y'all missed the fact that the 800 or so reactor workers who survived the Tsunami inside the nuke plant, would be all dead if they had been at home when the wave hit.
Will y'all be willing to eat toxic produce from the Fraser Valley when the coming Big One destroys and burns all our local refineries and chemical storage facilities.
A Chinese dam burst a few years back killed 100K citizens a few years back as will the Cleveland dam in a 9.6 quake. Should BCHydro shut down all its dams?
There are hundreds of reactors world wide under development and construction so a bit of slowdown but not by much. Small reactors run on uranium just fine.
China expects to get nearly all its electricity from clean and green nuclear and hydro after phasing out coal over the next few decades. China is run by engineers, the West by Big Oil corrupted attorneys.
If you have any more issues y'all think are unresolved please feel free.
snert
1 year ago
Granville
All of the issues are solvable, the resolve just needs to be there and that won't happen if people keep obstructing the process.
Nora Farmer
1 year ago
‘Carbon dioxide has zero effect on global warming’
"Ottawa has pulled out of the 1997 anti-global warming Kyoto Protocol, saying the treaty is “not working.” Piers Corbyn, the founder of the Weather Action Foundation, says Canada is doing the right thing.
According to Corbyn, the solar activity – not carbon dioxide – is behind climate change.
“I don’t believe in man-made climate change because there is no evidence for it. In fact, carbon dioxide is controlled by world temperatures rather than the other way around,” he told RT. “Climate change is going on, and the key aspects of the big, very extreme events that happened in the last 18 months were predicted by us, the Weather Action, using solar activity.
“Carbon dioxide has zero effect, I repeat: zero effect, no effect whatsoever.”
Corbyn believes that the Kyoto protocol is based on what appears to be a semi-fraudulent scheme aimed at wasting public funds which could otherwise have a better use.
“It is a complete waste of time. It’s a waste of public money. It’s a gravy train for so-called scientists looking into things that don’t exist, and, of course, for the governments to impose taxations, and oil companies to increase oil prices on the back of increasing energy prices – which is the thing demanded by the global warming’s nonsense lobby,” he explained.
“So, frankly, I’m glad that Canada has left the Kyoto Protocol process and I hope it heralds the collapse of the whole thing," Piers Corbyn concluded."
watch:
http://rt.com/news/carbon-canada-effect-kyoto-773/
frank2
1 year ago
This article highlights the
This article highlights the value of a carbon tax levied at every stage of production. (There would, of course, have to be levies at the border on materials imported from jurisdictions which did not charge the tax.)
Nora Farmer
1 year ago
Oh, Frankie...et tu?
What is wrong with you? What kind of masochism lines up and begs for more taxation on such specious grounds?
RickW
1 year ago
Nora Farmer
What does it matter what a tax is based on? Using your "rationale" how can you justify income taxes - or any type of sales tax for that matter?