Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Globe essay

A win-win-win solution

DAVID KEITH AND THOMAS HOMER-DIXON

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 1:42 PM EST 06/04/08

It could be a win-win-win situation for Canada ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. John Deriso from Edmonton, Canada writes: Nuclear power. That's the answer. It's cheap, it's clean, it's safe, and the waste can be dealt with. Any other proposal is just beating around the bush. Nuclear power. Nuclear power. I'll say it again, for effect, NUCLEAR POWER.
  2. Paul Wallnutz from Canada writes: John Deriso: I couldn't agree more with you comment. In Ontario for example we have no fossil fuel reserves, so any fuel would have to be imported from other jurisdictions. Nuclear power can be a Made in Ontario solution to our energy needs.

    Electric home heating, electric vehicles, electricity to generate hydrogen from electrolysis of water (as a portable fuel). These is the answers.

    Breeder reactors and the Thorium cycle will take care of the mid-term fuel needs. In the long term fusion power is the ultimate goal.
  3. Marvist Clank from Alberta, Canada writes: I'm a big fan of Nukes but try and sell that to my neighbors or British Columbians. I'm serious, I need help with that one.

    There are other benefits to CO2 capture and sequestering as well. It can be used for tertiary recovery and maintaining field pressures when it is reaching the end of it's life.

    I think we should get this thing rolling before the next 10 years takes the wind out of their sails ... I'm afraid it looks like the hockey stick is pointed down. I just hope that Russian scientist is wrong and it will just be a couple years. If you want to know why sea levels are not rising, just do a little research into ice accumulation in Antarctica in terms of mass in the last decade and now in the last 2 years in terms of area. It looks like we will get to see the expansion of multiyear ice on our end as well starting next year to levels above the 20 year average.

    As far as government involvement in this I think they have to lead to make the infrastructure open to different users. Otherwise it will be a collection of different independent systems.
  4. Jim Shepherd from Lima, Peru writes: Whenever I feel the sun, I feel a sense of frustration as an engineer.

    Granted, harnessing fusion will take 50 years or so, and is far beyond the capability of private industry.

    How could something so simple be so difficult to achieve?

    Burning coal in London was made a capital offense some 800 years ago, so we are not talking about a new concept here.

    Coal and oil will not go away any time soon, and I will be long dead before a replacement is found.

    However, if the GreenPeace types make it impossible to responsably harness nuclear fission, the odds of ever harnessing nuclear fusion are about zero. Best Regards.
  5. Jim **** from Canada writes: Carbon capture is attacking the symptom, not the cause. Unless we can live on the renewable resources of the planet, our species is doomed.

    Europe has a North American standard of living on one half the energy use, and even they could slash the amount of energy used if they put their minds to it. (which they are)

    Homer Dixon Thomas is a false prophet, and part of the problem, not the solution.
  6. R C from Canada writes: Your article is strange: it is premised on the extraordinary power of environmental groups (and their anachronistic ways)! Most would be astonished to here of such groups pulling the levers of power while big oil and gas interests sit in the sidelines. CCS is such a good thing that neither industry nor environmental groups want to support it on their own initiative. Thus government has a role...and yet, as you improbably conclude, this government is too concerned about the NGOs, to go ahead with CCS. Please, more proof before I accept you hypothesis.

    Moreover, although you seems to relish identifying the 'old leftist' strains in the current environmental movement that are not charmed by the awesome ingenuity of capitalism - indeed, they are reflexively against capitalism by your account. What is strange of course with your characterization as such, if you lack of attention to the most compelling reasons why CCS is not favoured among the solutions to climate change: it does nothing to address our behaviour which is the original cause of our environmental woes. Indeed, it is the 'landfill' solution that does little to modify our behaviour despite everyones' insistence that we need to start weening ourselves off of fossil fuels (ie. peak oil people included), because we are gonna run out.

    Thus, the skepticism about CCS is not necessarily some rabid, irrational anti-capitalism as you suggest and rather contemplates the overall changes that need to be made and what mechanism are best to achieve such change - in this view - CCS is not the preferred or progressive option. Yes climate change is urgent - thus we should demand more comprehensive plans to address it.
  7. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: The best carbon sinks are plants. Deforestation has taken a huge toll. While high-tech solutions will be useful, many other strategies are available and should be included, like nuclear energy, improved efficiencies and reforestation.
  8. Geoffrey May from Canada writes: Since when does anyone listen to environmental groups ? If we did we would have been cutting carbon for the past twenty years .Yes it offends me to subsidize GE to build wind turbines.BIO fuels is another industry-based solution, opposed by most environmentalists, yet it has been funded to the point that it now drives hunger .It is obvious that industry is trying to profit from greening, as they do from puluting.It win-win-win for the oil industry.
    I have no problem with ccs per se , although with nearly a decades worth of record profits, the oil and caol industry should do their own funding.
    My main objection to CCS is the illussion that technology can save us from our greed , and it can't .
    We need to shift our societal infrastructure away from individual high energy transport, into collective low energy transport, and ccs is only a hinderance .
  9. Edward Ertl from Bathurst, NB, Canada writes: Fusion power, OK. Cold fusion? Don't laugh yet. Fission? A very bad idea; the uranium mining tailing ponds in Saskachewan need to last 800,000 years! It is insane to think we can hide our pollution in "tomorrow". In 800,000 years, we will have evolved into another species, if we're lucky. What will they think of those U-age cretins who made such a mess of Eden? U-pollution not being dangerous enough for some folks, they think they are justified in spreading uranium dust from depleted uranium armour piercing shells all over Iraq, where the winds of time may eventually carry some of it all over the world. After all, this dust has a half-life of 2.5 BILLION years, by which time we will certainly have disappeared from this poisonned planet, and any others we manage to infest. What are we thinking? That nuclear pollution will simply divert the normal evolutionary process along a path that will allow all species to adapt to the new normalcy? No big deal! Is this already happening to the local mice in Chernobil? Apocryphal? Carbon capture? A neat idea unless we plan on putting it back in the wells from whence came the petroleum in the first place. Why? Because we have only sucked out the most easily recoverable 10%, leaving 90% in the ground waiting for a new technology to be able to recover it. Oil shortage my eye! So will sequestering carbon in those wells make it easier to recover more oil, or will it create a huge impediment to getting it out in the future? So we are left with centuries of burning coal, 'til we can replace that with renewable sources in a few generations time. But there is a very bright light shining on the coal burning scenario. The promise of zero pollution, thanks to an American technological invention being developed in Ontario, that of burning coal at high pressure (3500 psi?) and capturing all the pollution. I only hope the pollution can be converted to an inert solid form to be used as a useful byproduct or at worst as a solid landfill.
  10. Charles Murray from Canada writes: The authors seem to be so high up in their ivory towers that they have lost contact with the real world and how it operates. Burying carbon underground is such a futile effort that one can't take it seriously (unless looking for vast sums of government money). Each of China's fabled brand new coal fired power stations (a new one each week) will produce more carbon than any sink can provide.
    The only effective way to reduce carbon emissions is through taxation and incentives locally and through international treaty globally.
  11. Retired Guy from Canada writes: What "climate change"? Is that what they used to call "global warming"? The climate changes. It always has. Get used to it.
  12. Trevor Norris from Toronto, Canada writes: How ironic that the same oil companies that continually lobby for less taxes and small government try to get taxpayers to clean up their mess. And the authors lead us to believe that it is the all-powerful environmentalists that stand in the way of a cleaner environment!

    The authors state that "By opposing CCS, environmental groups are gambling that we can make the huge cuts in CO2 emissions we need simply by improving our energy efficiency and using renewables like solar and wind power." No, what environmentalists want is our government to develop and enforce strict regulations and to hold polluters accountable. They then claim that government caused this problem--it is in fact "baroque government energy and climate policy" that can only be fixed by government billions--or perhaps these policies are baroque because of continued inaction by our 'new' government. And they then equate government support for new ways to CREATE energy (wind, solar), with a new way to clean up the mess of one high profitable industry.

    We should certainly be wary of those who seem to think that what lies beneath the soil (oil) gives those who happen to live above it not only tremendous profit but also superior political wisdom. And in the case of these authors, wary of those whose political wisdom is supported by that same profit.
  13. Geoff Garver from Montreal, Canada writes: Very good article! I was a strong CCS skeptic until I read George Monbiot's book Heat. He, too, was a skeptic, but after surveying all the ways to get an 80% reduction in GHG emissions by 2050 using existing or emerging technologies, he changed his mind. And mine too. The book is a must read - full of honest information about the very tough choices we face in dealing with climate change.
  14. Bob Van Derlay from Toronto, Canada writes: We need to be able to demonstrate that coal fired generators can economically recover and sequester carbon dioxide. That addresses a high percentage of the carbon dioxide from coal. Demonstrating recovery and sequestration of carbon dioxide from tar sand operations only addresses about 30% of the carbon dioxide. Most of the rest is released by us users as we drive our cars and heat our homes. This problem remains.
  15. Archie Wellford from Canada writes: The biggest problem in this whole area is thinking as revealed by the following citation: As John Bennett, of ClimateforChange.ca, put it, "The cost of cleaning up an industry should come out of the profits of the industry, not the taxpayers' pockets." It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out that the costs taken out of the profits of industry necessarily and inexorably get filtered own to the taxpayers' pockets. And to what avail? To solve a problem that does not exist? There is no emperical evidence that anything other than forces well beyond the control of man has anything to do with the variablities of the earth's climatic conditions. What we see is what we get. But now, if you want to talk about litter and pollution, that's a whole other subject that is not, repeat not connected to so-called "climate change".
  16. Dick Garneau from Canada writes: It is interesting that a recent survey (March 6, 2008) of 51,000 professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysiciests of Alberta only 26% attribute global warming to human activity.

    68% disagree with the statement that "the dabate on scientific causes of recent climate change is settled".

    However 99% agree that the climate is changing.

    Then you wonder why Alberta is cool on ideas to eliminate the natural cycles of climate change.

    It would be far wiser to make ready for change.

  17. JJ Coltrane from Toronto, Canada writes: CCS is part of the solution. Large business has a role, they can best manage and operate the large capital investments to make CCS a reality.

    Instead of providing a hand out to the major source of the climate change problem in Canada we could simply send that price signal and let "modern capitalism" do its dandiest. They probably need some financial support from government in absence of a strong price signal on carbon emissions. However, to invest $2 billion dollars without providing the framework under which future emissions will be treated is crazy.

    If we believe in the efficiencies of the market and that this CCS investment is simply a demonstration project, lets ensure that we inform the oil and gas industry what carbon is going to cost so that they make these investments independent of future government money. We need a price on carbon. We need a price on carbon.

    We need a price on carbon.

    As for nuclear energy it is one of the most expensive solutions to reducing carbon emissions and as is the nature of these large infrastructure investments they cannot stay on budget, evidenced recently in Ontario with already a 10% cost overrun in a two year old project refurbishing one of the Bruce Power reactors. Future overruns will be paid entirely by tax payers. But the bigger question is what does managing nuclear waste over 10,000, 100,000 or 200,000 years cost? Is it really fiscally prudent to write debts that long in the future when the unknowns are so great? Why will the private market not insure nuclear power generation?
  18. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: Dick Garneau from Canada writes: "It is interesting that a recent survey (March 6, 2008) of 51,000 professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysiciests of Alberta only 26% attribute global warming to human activity. 68% disagree with the statement that "the dabate on scientific causes of recent climate change is settled"."

    It's hard to disagree with anything your paycheque is dependent on.
  19. John Percy from Halifax, Canada writes: Those who say that climate change isn't caused by humans but rather part of a natural cycle, so we don't have to do anything about it, is like saying the river is rising but I am not a cause of that flooding so I don't have to build dikes. Recession and depression are natural economic cycles, but if government claimed there was nothing they could do because that's just the way it is, we'd be howling for their heads on a pike. (Hmmnnn...not a bad idea).

    It doesn't matter how it is caused; it's happening and we should prepare sooner rather than later to minimize the impact on our daily lives.
  20. Jean Malice from Fight Global Walarmism and Carbon taxes, Canada writes: Hugh Campbell writes: "It's hard to disagree with anything your paycheque is dependent on. "

    Let's have fun with the AGW propaganda again: Take Prof. Phil Austin from UBC E&OS department latest column page 9 "Placing our bets on Global warming" in the alumni newsletter 2007. This is a credo to IPCC that would make Gore proud. And surely Prof. Austin placed his "bet" since page 21 we learn the dear professor is the lead investigator recipient of $2.1 million of tax payer's money for research! Good bet Mr Professor... LOL

    By the way Eric Reguly non commentable story about global warming and ski resorts in Italy is hilarious considering this year the Alps received so much snow and ski resort have done exceedingly well... another example of AGW propaganda style "if temps rise..."
  21. Jean Malice from Fight Global Walarmism and Carbon taxes, Canada writes: Blue ribbon panel? Was Homer-Dixon the new eco-eco-eco guru a member? They'll all push each others to appear the greenest! Meanwhile the same garbage fearmongering is recycled in the Globe and maird...
  22. Andrew Slater from Canada writes: I kept looking in the article for an explanation of what it was, how it would work and what the benefits and downsides could be. Then the G&M asks me to participate in a poll as to whether it's a good idea or not. How can I possibly know without some information?
  23. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Retired Guy from Canada writes: "The climate changes. It always has. Get used to it."

    And at present the climate is clearly cooling, in the face of ever-increasing GHG emissions and concentrations:

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.pdf
  24. Dick Garneau from Canada writes: Yes the river is rising (Mississippi) and after spending millions of dollars trying to stop it, in vain.

    The simple solution was to move the town to higher ground.

    We must stop the political mob from trying to turn pure science into dogma. Patrick Michael Former U.S. climatologist
  25. Cliff Dunlop from vancouver, Canada writes: Anyone remember any of their organic chemistry? Write the formula for burning (oxidation) of methane. Notice what happens to oxygen? Everyone whines about making and storing C02. Just remember burning stored carbon uses up oxygen and it isn't returned to the atmosphere. Got enough to keep going? cough, cough.

    Incidentally I think it's all a crock. Just thought I'd throw that in there so the extremists have something else to complain about.
  26. Jean Malice from Fight Global Walarmism and Carbon taxes, Canada writes: Earth Hour propaganda is coming soon: From 8 to 9 p.m. on March 29th, cities around the world will be turning off their lights to raise awareness about climate change.

    Canada is leading the way with 50 cities and 1,000 businesses signed up so far.

    The World Wildlife Fund of Canada (WWF-Canada), organizers of the event, says it will be as carbon-neutral as possible and will be powered with green, renewable energy.

    Last year's inaugural Earth Hour was held in Australia. An estimated 2.2 million Australians participated, reducing demand on the power grid by 10 per cent.

    The event has since caught on around the world.

    "It's a step and it lets people see how individual actions add up," Tara Wood, spokesperson for WWF-Canada, told The Toronto Star.

    "Earth Hour is a great celebration of what we can accomplish together and it gets us thinking about simple steps we can take to make every hour Earth Hour."

    YES LET'S MAKE IT EVERY HOUR WITHOUT POWER, ELECTRICITY... LET'S DO IT ALSO IN WINTER... WWF=PROPAGANDIST
  27. J Lee from North Vancouver, Canada writes: What the article completely failed to mention, let alone emphasize, is that viable carbon storage technologies don't yet exist. Yes, there are some minor sites in operation but none that have been designed to scale and none that are operational. So to propose CCS as a solution is entirely premature. The recent government funding is to help assess whether the technologies can be made to work. And that is on a technical level. Then comes the economic assessment. And it is not at all clear that CCS is economically viable. So while it is nice to talk about the politics of CCS, it is much harder to talk about the technologies and economics and much harder to make them actually function. It is unfortuante that in this important and pressing debate about climate change and CO2 that the authors chose to imagine that future possibilites rather than on current concrete actions will be the solution.
  28. John Cameron from Red Deer, Canada writes:
    For the time being CSS offers a made in Canada solution to keeping CO2 out of the atmosphere.

    In my humble opinion it would be best implemented by replacing the lost 2% of the gst with another levy and devoting that to getting CSS going.
    Later it could go to other direct measurable projects.

    In the case of ethanol from biomass as opposed to food products the benefit would be double as the system is then burying recycled carbon and effectively filtering the air of CO2.

    Long term the issue is a competitive cost of energy and since Canada lies at high latitudes facing seasonal variations in solar energy that are inverse in relationship to demand we face extra issues compared to lower latitudes.

    However there is no doubt in my mind that biomass biofuels represent the only feasible long term way to capture energy during our bountiful sunlight summers and consume it during the long dark winters.

    Our economy would then be linked directly to the carbon cycle and totally renewable and except for long term variations on yields completely independent of where or who controls the energy supply as it is now.
  29. Cliff Dunlop from vancouver, Canada writes: And again, if you store C02, you are also permanently removing and storing oxygen as well. You may be putting back carbon that you took out of the ground with sequestration, but the oxygen is coming out of the atmosphere and is a net loss to the planet. How long does this go on before we notice it? If we must worry about it, then replace petrochemicals with hydro electrically produced fuels such as hydrogen and plant lots and lots of vegetation. At least plants return C02 back to basic carbon and release the trapped oxygen.
    Also, what's with turning off our lights in BC? We're hydro electric. BC hydro must be laughing all the way to the bank as it sells the day's excess to the States.
  30. Mahatma Gandhi from Calgary, Canada writes: This is bone-headed:

    "Ideally, polluters should pay to clean up their pollution...Yet the sad reality is that it will take years and maybe decades to untangle Canada's baroque energy and climate policies and to replace them with transparent and simple regulations based on the "polluter pays" principle...If the real root of the opposition to CCS were the belief that the polluter should pay, environmental groups would also be attacking subsidies for wind power, biofuels and solar panels."

    Huh? How do these industries pollute? How can you lump them together with the tarsands?

    But we're supposed to accept that just because Canada's energy and climate policies are "baroque", then the tarsands companies should be allowed to get away with environmental murder, and the taxpayers meekly pick up the tab? And that to protest about this is "residual leftism"? Since when is protecting the taxpayers "leftism"?
  31. John Cameron from Red Deer, Canada writes: For those wondering about the technology viability check this site out for a quick overview of what's on the way.

    http://www.carboncapturejournal.com/
  32. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: Meanwhile, a recent poll found that 66 percent of Albertans reckon that at least some -- if not all -- of the more than 40-odd million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions generated by oil-sands facilities each year are being captured and stored safely underground. In fact, the real number is zero. Oops.

    http://www.desmogblog.com/the-enduring-myth-of-carbon-storage
  33. John Cameron from Red Deer, Canada writes: Hugh for got to mention you should also check out the bio of the leader of the desmogblog. He is an adman and among other things the president of the David Suzuki foundation.

    In fact Hugh you are also wrong if you believe the article which is for a fact wrong.

    While smaller than the Estevan project there is also a pilot project NE of Red Deer.
    http://www.ptac.org/co2/dl/co2f0602p11.pdf
  34. Albin Forone from Toronto, Canada writes: Unfortunately, this looks like special pleading for a tactic where there is no strategy. No doubt, assuming the technology actually "sequesters" emissions for more than a few years until it seeps out like a quiet f*rt, there are places where industrial emission and big holes in the ground are proximate. No doubt, there are places where nuclear makes good sense, no doubt there is some rational balance of agricultural food versus fuel production. The larger strategy has to be a revenue neutral (underlined) carbon tax and a regulatory regime to prevent carbon scams and profiteering. Resulting market costs will of course be passed down to retail consumers, but they will have compensatory income tax reductions and consumption choices to make. Carbon-wasteful industries will deservedly go the way of cod-wasteful industries in Atlantic Canada. No fear.
  35. martha stewart from Canada writes: I'd rather hear what Homer Simpson has to say.

    This is so predictable in its slant, sources, and content that they should have just let Bennett write it. This former head of the Sierrra Club (all these groups are connected by the way) doesn't even seem to understand that higher costs to industry get passed on to consumers.

    But where it is economic and rational to do this, why not.

    Seems the environmental groups are not too keen on this line of thinking - probably because it will be none of their business. They are not interested in real solutions. They feed off fear and crisis, real or manufactured. Extortion.

    As others have posted - nuclear power is the only option for enough reliable power if we want to reduce CO2.
  36. martha stewart from Canada writes: Cliff Dunlop from vancouver writes: "Also, what's with turning off our lights in BC? We're hydro electric. BC hydro must be laughing all the way to the bank as it sells the day's excess to the States."

    Actually Chris, BC Hydro still has to buy coal-fired electricity from Alberta as often as it gets to sell any surpluses.

    To make all the Vancouver folks feel greener they are looking at shutting down the Burrard plant. That will create other problems.

    And there is nothing environmentally friendly about flooding huge valleys to produce electricity as BC Hydro has done. Its just that most people have never seen those reservoirs, especially at low water. Most of BC's electricity comes from the Columbia and Peace R dams... look at a map... those aren't natural lakes, they don't stay full and 'pretty' and they were once huge areas of forest and/or farmland and wildlife habitat.

    Folks never seem to think about where electricity comes from... electric cars are 'green' - LOL!!!
  37. V ADS from Canada writes: There is no definitive proof that man-made CO2 emissions are a significant driver of either "global warming" or climate change.

    The science needs to be dispassionately debated before investing in carbon sequestration schemes that may prove to be expensive folly.

    After all, we're still in an Ice Age (albeit in an inter-glacial reprieve) with predictable and dramatic cooling and warming cycles that are obviously driven by powerful natural forces beyond human control.
  38. Jean Malice from Fight Global Walarmism and Carbon taxes, Canada writes: Ahh Hugh Campbell has to quote the mother of all promote the infamous Hogan propaganda war machine: desmoblog, the shameless delationist site! Watch out people, with desmoblog suzuki hogan jaccard we'll be forced to wear the green star...
  39. Jean Malice from Fight Global Walarmism and Carbon taxes, Canada writes: Daylight saving time requires more energy, not less
    By DENNIS CAMIRE
    Gannett News Service

    WASHINGTON — For Benjamin Franklin, daylight saving time was about saving candles and for modern lawmakers, it’s about electricity — but a recent university study found it might actually cost more energy when the nation resets its clocks Sunday.

    Matthew J. Kotchen, a professor of environmental economics at the University of California in Santa Barbara, and Laura E. Grant, a doctoral student in the same field, studied the effects of daylight saving in Indiana, where some counties used it and others did not. The states changed the law two years ago so that all counties now use daylight saving time.

    In an interview, Kotchen said using residential electricity bills for Indiana, he and Grant found that daylight saving time reduced electricity use for lighting but that more was used for air conditioning in the summer and heating in the fall than was saved.
  40. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: John Cameron from Red Deer, Canada writes: "While smaller than the Estevan project there is also a pilot project NE of Red Deer."

    Thank you for the correction.
  41. Wise Guy from Canada writes: Basic problem is we have built a civilization, infrastructure and settlements all dependent on cheap oil. You can't exactly turn that around once it's in place. This is first time humanity has faced declining energy intensity.

    Explain to me how we can possibly afford exotic and extremely low-yielding "renewable" energy like solar when we can't even afford to maintain existing infrastructure with cheap fossil fuels? The economy relies on building lots of new stuff, but isn't nearly as good at keeping it in repair. How pray tell will you repair roads bridges and sewers with photovoltaic panels. Aint gonna happen. I think there is a lot of unfounded, un-researched pie in the sky fantasy about "renewable" energy. It won't replace the function of fossil fuels, not even close.

    Nuclear - how do you know how much it costs yet? We've never disposed of the waste. Final bill outstanding ...

    Ever heard of peak uranium? It too is running out folks.
  42. Thomas Price from Whitefish, Canada writes: There are very few sources of energy available; carbon, sulfur, hydro, nuclear, wind, solar. Wind and solar currently require more carbon energy than the energy they produce. Nuclear has a black eye and has not devloped methods of dealing with its by-products. Hydro is limited to mean annual rainfalls and topography. This leaves carbon and sulfur as stable reliable sources of energy. Oxidation of both produces energy and noxious by-products. CCS of the noxious by-products seriously reduces the efficiency of both energy sources. Neutralization by chemical reaction to produce non-toxic by-products with minimal loss in efficiency for both sources, carbon and sulfur, should be the focus. The capture of sulfur by-products and the conversion to useful products has a long history. The same type of thinking is now needed for carbon by-products. Make the by-product, carbon dioxide, useful and everyone will beat a path to your door to do it instead of you.
  43. John Cameron from Red Deer, Canada writes: Fermentation of cellulose could be the answer to a lot of the need to reuse carbon. Instead of carting off about half of the cubic mass of forests and burning or wasting the rest digest it into methane or ethanol or other liquid and gaseous forms. At least it fits right into existing distribution methods and available engines etc.
    Gather up the yeast or microbes and use it to fertilize the next batch with the contained nitrogen and essential nutrients lacking in the wood or straw.
    Bury the carbon dioxide if possible.

    Meanwhile back to work on my floating solar panels and high capacity capacitors.
  44. martha stewart from Canada writes: John Cameron from Red Deer writes: "Fermentation of cellulose could be the answer to a lot of the need to reuse carbon. Instead of carting off about half of the cubic mass of forests and burning or wasting the rest digest it into methane or ethanol or other liquid and gaseous forms."

    This and all biofuel ideas essentially means stripping natural ecosystems of nutrients, not to mention habitat destruction worse than occurs now (habitat grows back now). All things considered these natural biofuel ideas, like ethanol and other agriculturally produced fuels, are a cure far, far worse than the supposed disease. Moreover, only rich countries could not see the immorality of burning food to maintain their 'way of life' while millions starve... and the price of food if this trend continues will even bite rich countries.

    Lots of room for solar, wind, tidal, geothermal but to power our civilization reliably, nuclear is the only real option if CO2 reduction is the goal.
  45. Mike McFae from Canada writes: It's official, the patients have taken over the asylum.
  46. garlick toast from Canada writes: Jim Shepherd from Lima, Peru writes: Whenever I feel the sun, I feel a sense of frustration as an engineer.

    Granted, harnessing fusion will take 50 years or so, and is far beyond the capability of private industry.
    ----------------------------------------

    when i look towards the sun,i think ''hydrogen''.all we need to do is find the right container.
  47. Stan Williams from Free-market province, Canada writes: Asking for government money for CCS? Seems like Command and Control economics (i.e. Ontario/karl marx school of economics). What's wrong with steadily increasing worldwide carbon taxes and worldwide cap and trade (both requiring US leadership and a different president (and PM)? Why not let the market find the best solution (and not the pipeline companies)?

    PS Trust corporation for public policy? Doesn't Exxon's disinformation campaign or the history of tobacco companies give us some reason not to?
  48. John Cameron from Red Deer, Canada writes: Martha
    I believe you are correct about agricultural fuels like ethanol from grain, however that is not what I said.
    Cellulose(the straw) part could be used and the value would be equal to the grain portion for fuel. The other half of the crop which is below ground is still there for sustaining the soils.
    The other required nutrients for growth would go into the initial batch of product and then be reused as fertilizer or recycled yet again thru livestock before being returned into the land.
    In areas like the boreal forest where lumber is produced and crops are not, due to climatic restrictions, the trees have a value for fuel too and digesting them or the waste parts and returning the dead bodies of the organisms as nutrients to the area harvested would close that loop too.

    This is exactly what the ruminant group of animals does- because they are mobile and selective they can harvest energy from sites that yield no useful material to humans and return the nutrients to the soils from which they came. The milk and eventually meat become useful as food otherwise we would have to chew our own grass and thistles.

    Nuclear closes no loops and gets us ever further into a technical morass that produces a most lethal collection of products for which we have no good storage or funding to protect said storage from bad users.
  49. Journey Man from Ontario, Canada writes: garlick toast from Canada writes: "when I look towards the sun, I think ''hydrogen'', all we need to do is find the right container."

    You have the right idea about the container, but the wrong notion about the hydrogen as an energy SOURCE. Hydrogen itself is a container...but only for STORING ENERGY produced by other sources. Think of it as a battery, but the energy to charge the battery has to come from elsewhere. Most of the hydrogen used industrially now comes from natural gas, perhaps not the best use for this valuable resource.

    It can however be produced by electrolysis of water (using electricity) or using a thermochemical process from a high temperature nuclear reactor. But once you have the stuff it isn't easy to handle or transport.
  50. Thomas Price from Whitefish, Canada writes: Removal of biomass without replenishing the minerals and nutrients results in barren landscape (see parts of Afghanistan, Isreal and many other areas of the middle east). Replenishing the minerals and nutrients requires fertilizer and the carbon chain grows. It is interesting though that if sulfur is used as a fuel, the sulfur dioxide produced can be made into sulfuric acid which is necessary for the production of fertilizer. At present most of the fertilizer is being used to feed people instead of autos but that can be changed. Hydrogen is a terrific fuel but at present the amount of carbon that must be used to produce the hydrogen is far greater than using the carbon directly. The same is true of carbon driven electrical energy. Every conversion of carbon fuel to an alternative type of energy prior to end use reduces the efficiency, produces increased carbon dioxide with the loss of energy being wasted heat and an increased wastage of a depleting fuel supply.
  51. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Cliff Dunlop from vancouver, Canada writes: "... if you store C02, you are also permanently removing and storing oxygen as well."

    The quantities of oxygen involved are trivial, though. Currently CO2 represents about .038% of the atmosphere, despite all the frantic burning of carbon that we humans have been doing, while oxygen is just under 21%.
  52. John Cameron from Red Deer, Canada writes: >>>>"Thomas Price from Whitefish, Canada writes: Removal of biomass without replenishing the minerals and nutrients results in barren landscape (see parts of Afghanistan, Isreal and many other areas of the middle east). Replenishing the minerals and nutrients requires fertilizer and the carbon chain grows. It is interesting though that if sulfur is used as a fuel, the sulfur dioxide produced can be made into sulfuric acid which is necessary for the production of fertilizer." -------->>>>

    If you BURN the wood or other biomass you do run the essential nutrients into the air as pollution, think wood smoke from fires.

    Biofuels rely on fermentation which transforms materials using enzymes, a type of catalytic reaction.
    I am intrigued by your suggestion of the use of sulfur as a fuel however my knowledge is restricted. I know H2S is highly reactive, burns readily and is also being used as an enhanced oil recovery gas. It and CO2 are "acid" gases and act to stop breathing almost instantaneously. The difference as I understand it is that hydrogen sulfide is extremely toxic in very low concentrations and CO2 only in quite high concentrations in confined spaces.
    Could you please elaborate?
  53. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: None of this carbon stuff matters anyway. It is becoming ever clearer that the AGW hype is grossly overblown. As further global cooling progresses in the face of ever increasing GHG concentrations even the most rabidly dogmatic AGW proselytizer will have to face the reality. Actual temperatures (in the link below) do not show a strong connection with CO2 concentrations.

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.pdf
  54. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: If I recall correctly, H2S up to concentrations of 10 PPM or so smells like rotten eggs. Above that the sense of smell disappears. From 20 PPM and up severe damage starts to occur to the eyes, blood-brain barrier, and respiratory system.

    Permanent damage and death occur rapidly at concentrations above 50 PPM.

    We don't ever want to distribute H2S as a fuel.
  55. martha stewart from Canada writes: John Cameron from Red Deer - The primary problem I see with the use of natural biofuels, other than the depletion of nutrients, is the destruction and disturbance of habitat. One cannot undertake this kind of intensive industrial use of natural habitats without severe impacts. In contrast, logging or fires impacts an area then ends, allowing it to grow back and providing a succession of habitats for a succession of species as it does. I see this whole line of thinking to be the equivalent of turning us into the proverbial plague of locusts. It is the cure infintely worse than the supposed disease.

    I've seen suggestions of the use of natural biofuels rationalized by suggesting the harvest would not happen during the breeding season of birds. That conveniently ignores that birds, including species that do not breed there, use those habitats at other seasons.

    Finally, while nuclear power creates localized problems, this biofuel idea will cause widespread destruction and depletion.
  56. John Cameron from Red Deer, Canada writes: Martha
    Can you close the loop for me on how and when nuclear wastes are to be recycled into the environment?
  57. Jim Shepherd from Lima, Peru writes: There are 2 possibilities for reducing carbon "footprint":

    1) Move to Lima with a 22C annual average temperature and 12 hours per day of sunlight.

    2) Stay in Canada, and freeze in the dark.

    Neither of these options will likely be required within the next 100 years.

    Perhaps I am just ahead of my time... Best Regards.

    P.S. Sorry if I am laughing so hard at the article, and many of the "Chicken Little" posts, that effectively argue that freezing in the dark might be a good idea. I am still searching for the best "Darwin Award" submissions though...
  58. martha stewart from Canada writes: John Cameron from Red Deer writes: "Martha
    Can you close the loop for me on how and when nuclear wastes are to be recycled into the environment?"

    Most of Canada is underlain by the Canadian Shield, one of the oldest and most stable chunks in the earth's crust. That's where we put it. There may even be some old mines that could be modified for this purpose. Then in the future we will probably learn how to reprocess even that. In the meantime, no need to recycle it.

    One ideal use for nuclear power is processing the oil sands. The uranium is close by and so is the Shield for disposal.
    Most of N SK, MB, ON, PQ and NF all have Shield rock.

    Seems like a no-brainer to me. There are risks but there are risks in everything. Despite all the fear-mongering, Three Mile island didn't happen and Chernobyl was a run-down rustbusket run by Commies. Seen Hiroshima or Nagasaki lately?

    France gets most of its electrical power from nuclear energy. Wonder where they put that waste?
  59. martha stewart from Canada writes: Jim Shepherd from Lima, Peru - It seems that you are not taking this seriously enough. I thought you were a regular Globe reader? It has been clearly stated in this paper that its "unprecendented" and "catastophic." We're all going to die. Al Gore says its a "planetary crisis," - the planet has a fever!!! Its so serious that David Suzuki wants to put everyone in jail who doesn't agree with him. He's flying around the world to tell everyone else not to fly around the world.

    And for goodness sakes Jim, think of the penguins and polar bears! The latter have been seen swimming!!! Its unprecedented (if you know absolutely nothing about polar bears).

    And here Homer Simpson weighs in, quoting the "leading experts" of the IPCC and the geek from the Sierra Club, I mean the 'climate change network'. Send him a cheque today. Its the least you can do to save the planet. If you don't, its just a matter of time before Machu Pichu is flooded. Honest. Seriously. No, really.
  60. John Cameron from Red Deer, Canada writes: So where does France put their nuclear waste?

    Exactly how would you employ nuclear to "process" the oil sands?
  61. martha stewart from Canada writes: John Cameron from Red Deer - To replace the energy now supplied by natural gas up there. In fact there are two proposals, at least, to do that. Shell and Husky. And another proposal to build a reactor on the Peace River which may be related to those two, or not. Seems far better than wasting natural gas for that purpose when its ideal for home heating. For those on that system at least.
  62. Jim Shepherd from Lima, Peru writes: martha stewart: Your list of the Precambrian Shield provinces is quite correct (add NWT, Yukon, Nunavut, NS, NB, etc, but close enough...) leading me to believe that you have a good knowledge of geology, among other things.

    Spent nuclear fuel rods take up so little space that they are stored in "swimming pools" at CANDU reactors, and there is no pressing need for underground storage in any case.

    I got a chuckle out of Machu Picchu being flooded, since it is only 2,400 metres above the level of NYC, among other coastal cities...

    Maybe we could make some serious money telling people that only we can control the weather and climate...

    A few "rain dances" at a hundred million dollars a pop would do it for me... Best Regards.
  63. John Cameron from Red Deer, Canada writes: The Peace river proposers(former oil industry execs out of Calgary) sold out to somebody else awhile back- don't know who owns that idea now.

    Check out Petrobank Energy in Calgary if you would like to learn something new about other sources of energy to recover bitumen.. won't work in all places but can actually recover oil profitably from worked over SAGD projects according to them so no real need to burn gas for a great deal of the recovery phase.

    So where is France storing their nuclear wastes?
  64. martha stewart from Canada writes: Jim Shepherd from Lima, Peru - Thanks. Was at my 1000 character limit so something had to go. Otherwise the G & M compresses posts and without little spacers - time consuming task - its a mess. And I do tend to blabber on...

    And I see a missed a c in Picchu. And you're not worried about The Flood there? LOL!

    Not so long ago shamans and the like did very well 'controlling' the weather. Now we have the IPCC shamans et al. So somebody has already beat us to that market. And its not cheap to produce ads like Gore's film. Special effects and all.

    Seems the most lucrative scam available without a UN mandate is selling carbon-guilt offsets. (Concept invented by the Church... called them indulgences until that stupid Martin Luther ruined everything.) But now you can charge almost as much as you want just to plant a tree somewhere. Or just say you will. Can even take tree planting holidays to, say, anywhere you might want to go - and pay yourself for that CO2! Free enterprise!
  65. martha stewart from Canada writes: John Cameron - I don't know where France stores it. That's why I asked. Glad you did again too. maybe somebody will answer. But I'm guessing that they ship it off to one of their former colonies.

    Does kind of make you wonder about drinking Perrier water though eh?

    I've been watching Petrobank shares march steadily upward all year on that news but still don't know much about it. Obviously should learn, and should have learned already. Sounded so good that it reminded me of Cold Fusion! But that sure would help. I gag when I think of how much gas they use up there now. Of course, i remember not so long ago when nat gas was just flared off as waste unless it was right beside a pipeline... hate to think of how much we've already wasted. Live and learn.

    Got to run. Hope somebody knows about France.
  66. Jim Shepherd from Lima, Peru writes: martha stewart: I have no problem building "clean coal" power plants in China or Mongolia, if people are stupid enough to pay cash with "carbon credits".

    Sounds like we would make a great team, raping and pillaging the world for personal gain, similar to my hero, Sir Francis Drake (or El Draco, as he was affectionately called by the Spanish).

    If people really want to throw their money away, why should we not cash in on their stupidity? Best Regards.
  67. Jean Malice from Fight Global Walarmism and Carbon taxes, Canada writes: Here is a link to the audio and the transcript of the radio interview Anthony Watts did with Glenn Beck on Monday at the International Conference on Climate Change in New York.
    www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/196/6727/?ck=1
    For those that would like to see my slide show presented at ICCC that day, see this link:
    gallery.surfacestations.org/watts-NYC-2008/index.html
    UPDATE: The video interview I did on the Glenn Beck show is now online, see link below:
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sc-1SNZepoU&feature=related

    Worth your while I guarantee!
  68. John Cameron from Red Deer, Canada writes: Night all you know it alls
  69. Michael Crichton from Abbotsford, BC, Canada writes: But... they can't find a solution to this.

    Since I stopped going to church environmentalism is my go to religion and I won't have a worldview left if some scientist figures out a way to fix global warming. What about my guilt for over-using? What about my blue box penance? On what basis my sneering self- righteousness at my neighbour's SUVs? Make no mistake, they still sinners even if some ear-tickling prophet tells them they aren't hurting the planet. I want my inexorable armageddon!

    Mostly, I agree with Jim from above: "Homer Dixon Thomas is a false prophet, and part of the problem, not the solution."

    Burn this Homer Dixon (nee: Doubting) Thomas at the stake and we'll bury him with the carbon we capture from his blaspheming ashes!

    Amen.
  70. larry hallatt from Canada writes: The carbon imprint comes from us the consumer.....are we prepared to fork out another $5,000 to put extra insulation in our new homes. what about retrofitting old homes and buildings. How about your car.....how many are planning buying a car that gives at least 50 mpg.....granted hybrid electric are not green...batteries are key pollutants and ethanol from corn and grain was the environmentalist worse possible blunder. Most of our waste is life style.....we all are guilty and live off the fat we enjoy it. Hell I would even prefer an extra 2 degree temperature in Canada. maybe we should increase the carbon, make things warmer as long as we breath local clean air.
  71. TTL Thule from Canada writes: March 5, 2008 Want to Increase Your Greenhouse Gas Emissions? Use Biofuels! Filed under: Agriculture, Climate Politics — In almost every essay we feature at World Climate Report, our focus is on climatic phenomena and the general disagreement between observations and what numerical models of climate tell us should be happening given the ongoing buildup of greenhouse gases. We draw heavily from the professional scientific peer-reviewed literature, and our journals of choice range from highly specialized journals in the climate community to far more generalized, but very highly respected journals such as Science and Nature. A recent article in Science really caught our eye with the title “Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change.” This article is not going to be well received by a lot of people given 1000s of websites telling us to switch to biofuels in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions – it looks like those darn “unintentional consequences” are about to bite another great-sounding idea squarely in the butt. Published at : http://www.worldclimatereport.com/ Darn those "unintentional consequences", pumping CO2 into permeable formations(limestone,sandstone) poses the the real possiblity of acidifing the groundwater. Cup of listerine anyone?
  72. M. Mark from Victoria, Canada writes: It takes energy to extract the oil from the earth. It takes a huge amount of energy to extract the oil from the tar sands. It takes energy to process and transport the energy to where it is used. Now it will take energy to remove carbon from the atmosphere and force it back into the ground. I wonder how much energy we actually get to keep after using all that energy to extract and dispose of the carbon?
  73. M. Mark from Victoria, Canada writes: I think we need to focus on nuclear energy to meet our growing demand. It's clean, powerful, and doesn't produce greenhouse gases. The problem is long-term storage. I think we can reasonably expect to store it underground in the Canadian Shield for a thousand years or maybe two. We don't need to worry about storage beyond that. We are gradually depleting all of the earth's resources and destroying the climate. Only a massive population reduction can prevent it and that's unlikely to happen. Modern humans are not willing to make the massive changes necessary to keep things sustainable here on earth. Within a thousand years we will be colonizing other planets.
  74. Thomas Price from Whitefish, Canada writes: The combustion of H2S from natural gas is already being used to generate heat and steam while at the same time making elemental sulfur. Due to low concentrations of H2S, the process is energy negative and requires carbon fuels to make it work. The by-product of sulfur combustion is a different matter. The combustion of sulfur also generates heat and steam/electrical generation is a valuable by-product of sulfur burning sulfuric acid plants in the fertilizer industry making acid plants so equipped into profit centers instead of cost centers. From a hazard point of view, the tail pipe emissions from a diesel engine contain sufficient CO2 to be lethal. Each energy source has its own hazards most of which can be mitigated. Our target should be to be the most efficient we can be in the use of whichever energy source and only use these resources when necessary. The best CO2 reduction program technologically available to us today is to reduce consumption.
  75. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: M. Mark from Victoria, Canada writes:"... expect to store [spent nuclear fuel] underground in the Canadian Shield for a thousand years or maybe two."

    We need to be able to access the spent fuel in order to recycle it, extract the plutonium for example, to make new fuel. Once we move to the thorium-U233 fuel cycle we'll be conctantly breeding new fission material for reactor fuel and constantly reprocessing the 'spent' fule out of the reactors.
  76. The Bubble from Canada writes: This is odd, I clicked on this post from the article about Israel building more settlements but this thread is about nukes. Someone at the Globe is asleep. I was hoping the Globe actually allowed comments on the Palestinian/Jewish topic for a change.
  77. Go Oilers Go! from Canada writes: "This position reflects a profound failure to grasp the scale of humankind's carbon-energy crisis. To limit dangerous climate change, we need to cut emissions sharply very soon....Such a huge cut, even over 40 years, will require a staggering transformation of the global energy system."

    This paragraph highlights what too many people don't understand. It also is indicative of anyone who actually thought Canada had a chance of meeting our Kyoto targets when the Conservatives took office 2 years ago.

    This is a long term project that is going to need pragmatic solutions. Oil is not going to be eliminated as a fuel source in the next 50 years. A lot of steps can be made to limit and focus it's use; however it isn't going anywhere.

    World oil consumption is growing; Canada's oil consumption is growing. Extraction of oil and gas will be a reality and CCS is the only way to deal with the emissions directly related to the process.
  78. Go Oilers Go! from Canada writes: M. Mark from Victoria, Canada writes: "I wonder how much energy we actually get to keep after using all that energy to extract and dispose of the carbon?"

    Enough to run 90% of everything else.
  79. Go Oilers Go! from Canada writes: larry hallatt from Canada writes: "The carbon imprint comes from us the consumer.....are we prepared to fork out another $5,000 to put extra insulation in our new homes. what about retrofitting old homes and buildings."

    It goes far beyond that.

    If it's plastic it's a hydrocarbon. We've got a whole lot of plastic in our society.

    Metals too. They all have to be extracted because of pervasive use. The developing countries are now surpassing our levels of consumption.

    Electric cars are great. When is everyone planning on buying one? pedestrian vehicles will eventually all have to be electric or some form of zero emission vehicle.

    There are areas where we can eliminate the inclusion of fossil fuels; however don't kid yourselves hydrocarbon extraction and use will be a reality for long time.
  80. Jim Shepherd from Lima, Peru writes: GlynnMhor of Skywall: Spent fuel rods are kept in "swimming pools" at CANDU reactor sites specifically to allow them to be easily accessed and re-processed.

    The total volume of fuel rods is quite small, and underground storage may never even be required.

    U238 is not radioactive, is twice as dense as lead, and the radioactive U235 and P239 fractions are effectively shielded internally.

    This means that you can probably go swimming in a pool full of depleted fuel rods, although I would not recommend this on a daily basis.

    Despite the paranoia about anything nuclear,