UN seeks $29M for St. Vincent amid new volcanic threats

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — The United Nations announced Tuesday that it is seeking $29.2 million to help St. Vincent recover from ongoing volcanic eruptions that have destroyed homes and crops, contaminated water supplies and displaced up to 20% of people on the eastern Caribbean island.

© Provided by The Canadian Press

Didier Trebucq, the U.N. resident co-ordinator for Barbados and the eastern Caribbean, described the scene as “apocalyptic” during an online press conference in St. Vincent.

“The devastating impact of this event on thousands of people is undeniable,” he said, adding that more money will be needed once damage assessments are completed.

Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves said officials are still quantifying the damage, but that rebuilding will run “in the hundreds of millions of dollars,” on top of “massive” humanitarian relief needs.

More than 16,000 people were evacuated ahead of the first, April 9 explosion at La Soufriere volcano, with officials noting that ash is piled up to 16 inches (42 centimetres) high in some homes in the northern part of St. Vincent, where the volcano is located.

More than 6,200 evacuees are staying in 88 government shelters and thousands of others in homes or private shelters.

Food, water and ash removal remain high priorities as neighbouring nations and organizations pour supplies and funding into St. Vincent and the Grenadines, an island chain of more than 100,000 people, the majority of whom live on the main island of St. Vincent.

So far, U.N. agencies have set aside $2 million for water, hygiene and food vouchers and will send experts to help with the ash cleanup, while nations including Guyana, Dominica and Trinidad & Tobago have pledged funding and shipped basic supplies.

Gonsalves said feeding up to 12,000 people is an “extraordinary, existential challenge," for the island.

Help also has gone beyond caring for humans: The Eastern Caribbean Group of Companies sent food for a large pig spotted hanging around the island’s volcano observatory that has endeared itself to many St. Vincentians and was nicknamed “Tremor.”

Gonsalves also said he worried about the upcoming Atlantic hurricane season that starts in six weeks, as well as the pandemic, given that thousands of displaced people are now huddling in shelters and homes of friends and family.

Another concern is that ash and debris from the eruptions will form volcanic mudflows, lahars, as St. Vincent prepares for its rainy season. The first lahar was reported early Tuesday.

Scientists estimate that 100 million cubic meters of ash have fallen and Richard Robertson, who is leading the scientific team at the University of the West Indies’ Seismic Research Center studying La Soufriere, said during an online press conference that rains could unleash fast-flowing rivers of mud and debris capable of great damage.

During the conference, broadcast by local NBC radio, Robertson said scientists expect another explosion in the next week as the volcano seems to be forming a new lava dome.

While the volcano has been calm in recent days, “it can change pattern within minutes without any indication,” he said. “There’s a lot happening at the volcano that we don’t understand.”

The volcano had a minor eruption in December, with a previous eruption occurring in 1979. An older eruption in 1902 killed some 1,600 people.

Gonsalves warned it would take a long time for the northern one-third of St. Vincent to recover and rebuild. He noted that a high number of impoverished people live in the area, which has long relied on agriculture, animal husbandry, fishing and some tourism.

“None of that exists anymore. ... Plants have to be replanted” he said, his voice breaking. “We have been set back decades.”

___

Associated Press writer Jennifer Peltz contributed to this report from the United Nations.

DáNica Coto, The Associated Press

ALBERTA

Seventeen projects will receive $33 million in provincial funding to reduce emissions in the food, forestry and agriculture industries

WHILE KENNEY AND BIG OIL ASK THE FEDS FOR $30 BILLION FOR CARBON CAPTURE TO FRACK OLD WELLS

Dylan Short 

POSTMEDIA 4/21/2021

An Edmonton-based forestry company is one of 17 businesses benefiting from a $33-million investment from the Alberta government aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the forestry, agriculture and farming industries

.

© Provided by Edmonton Journal Operations at the Millar Western Whitecourt saw mill are seen in a 2012 Postmedia file photo Carla Howell | Whitecourt Star

Millar Western Forest Products is receiving a $730,000 grant from the province, through Emission Reduction Alberta (ERA) to incorporate artificial intelligence (AI) into their pulping process in an attempt to reduce their energy consumption at a Whitecourt mill.


Janet Millar, spokeswoman for Millar Western Forest Products, said the artificial intelligence will help place large metal plates involved in separating fibers in wood chips into pulp.

“This project will allow us to employ AI-driven technology to better and more rapidly reposition those plates as needed to make sure that they are more energy efficient in the way they operate,” said Millar.

She said the streamlined process will also result in a better quality product for their customers. Overall, the project is expected to remove 23,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per year from the process.

Millar Western was one of 17 companies to receive a total of $33 million from the province. Environment Minister Jason Nixon announced the funding Tuesday morning by appearing through a recorded video message at an ERA video conference.

If every project involved is successful, they are expected to reduce CO2 emissions by up to 2.7 million tonnes from Alberta’s forestry, food and agriculture industries by 2030, said a news release issued by the ERA.

“In 2019, Alberta also emitted more than 32 million tonnes from agriculture agri-food and forestry operations combined. That’s more than 34 per cent of Canada’s total emissions from these sectors,” said Nixon. “There’s a clear opportunity here to cut emissions and lower costs for producing processing food and fibre, and to leverage nature-based solutions that capture and store carbon.”

Other projects involved include energy-efficient greenhouses in Lacombe, using technology to remediate linear forestry damage caused by oil exploration and recapturing greenhouse gas emissions at a brewery in Lacombe. Projects also range from focusing on cow feed to reduce emissions to using drones to reforest remote areas.

In total, the 17 projects are worth $107 million in private and public funding, Nixon said.

“The food, farming and forestry challenge is another step Alberta is taking to balance the needs of the environment and the economy,” said Nixon. “Projects coming out of this challenge will attract local and international investment, open up new markets, (and) ensure long-term growth and success.”

dshort@postmedia.com

 *

CANADA
How To Fight Climate Change: Take The Government To Court

Fatima Syed 4/21/2021

© Provided by Chatelaine
(Illustration: Vivian Rosas)

Jacqueline Wilson is hyperaware of the growing frustration among young people and members of First Nations. A lawyer with the legal aid clinic Canadian Environmental Law Association, she has watched over the past five years as they’ve tried everything to get government leaders and policy-makers to scale up climate action. They’ve signed petitions. They’ve attended committee meetings. They’ve started social media movements, and even taken to the streets to protest. Nothing has worked.

Wilson’s clients are disproportionately impacted by the climate crisis, suffering its most severe effects and saddled with its future burden. So now they’re turning to another venue to fight inaction on climate change: the courts. Several cases are currently making their way through the Canadian legal system, each one hoping for a ruling that establishes access to a healthy natural environment as a human right. The outcome of these cases will legally define the federal government’s duty to implement effective, science-based climate action.

Nationally, 15 young people are claiming that the federal government is failing in its duty to protect the natural environment. They want the courts to order Canada to create a legally binding climate plan in line with our share of the global carbon budget. The case was dismissed in late 2020, but it’s being appealed.

A group of young Ontarians is arguing that the provincial government’s weakened emissions targets have hurt Canada’s climate policy and, in doing so, violated the “right to life, liberty and security of the person” assured in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In a landmark decision and a legal first in Canada, the provincial court determined the argument had standing and can proceed to trial. A similar case is being appealed in Quebec.

Two Hereditary Chiefs of the Wet’suwet’en nation have filed an appeal claiming that Canada is violating its constitutional duties by failing to meet its international climate agreements and set sufficient targets for emissions reduction. And in March, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government does in fact have the jurisdiction to impose climate policy across all provinces.

Lisa DeMarco is the founder of Resilient LLP, Canada’s only climate change and energy law firm. She’s representing a third party in the carbon-pricing case and says that the decision could historically establish the authority and boundaries of Canada’s climate action.

“The government is getting whacked from all angles: They’re getting whacked for being too broad. They’re getting whacked for not doing enough. They’re getting whacked for collateral damage,” DeMarco says. “One could argue the lawsuits are trying to force the federal government to realize its responsibilities and find the ambition to act.”

Globally, courts are filling up with parties looking for climate action. A UN report released last year found that there has been a sharp increase in litigation around the world. By July 2020, at least 1,550 climate change cases had been filed in 38 countries. Some have already resulted in historic decisions.

In February, a Paris court found the French government guilty of failing to adequately address climate change. Late last year, the Netherlands’ Supreme Court imposed a legally binding target and deadline for the Dutch government to reduce emissions, finding that not doing so could violate human rights. If Canadian courts followed suit, “there would be a floor the government has to meet,” Wilson says. “The climate crisis is an equity crisis, and if the courts can help define it as that, that’ll be a huge win.”

Historically, Canadian courts have tended to “shy away from . . . telling governments to do one thing or the other,” says David Khan, a lawyer with Ecojustice. What’s different now is the amount of public pressure for court decisions as a tool of accountability, where there long hasn’t been one. “There is a role to play for our courts,” Khan says. “Their decision could be the difference between climate action and inaction.”

*CHATELAINE IS CANADA'S OLDEST WOMAN'S/FEMINIST JOURNAL

Chatelaine (magazine) - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Chatelaine_(magazine)

Chatelaine is an English-language Canadian women's magazine which covers topics from food, style and home décor to politics, health and relationships.

Editor: Maureen Halushak

Frequency: 6 times a year

Year founded: March, 1928

Based in: Toronto

#YANKEEVIRUS  #TRUMPVIRUS

U.S. the biggest source of COVID-19 brought into Canada, study finds

It has been controversially labeled the “China virus,” but new research suggests Canada’s COVID-19 epidemic might be better nicknamed the America virus.

Tom Blackwell 

POSTMEDIA

4/21/2021

© Provided by National Post US Customs officers speak with occupants of a vehicle at the US/Canada border in Lansdowne, Ont., on March 2020.

More than half the imported variants of the pathogen that led to outbreaks in this country likely came from the United States, with Russia, India, Italy and the U.K. following well back as sources of imported virus, scientists from B.C., Ontario and Arizona concluded.

Virus arriving directly from China — where the pandemic is believed to have originated — accounts for relatively little transmission of COVID-19 here, they suggested.

The newly posted study was made possible by a remarkable international database of DNA sequences of SARS-CoV-2, a resource that’s letting scientists track at the genetic level how and where the pandemic is spreading.

The Canadian researchers say importation of virus slowed somewhat after international travel restrictions were imposed in March 2020, but outbreak-causing arrivals continued throughout the year.

“We are so interlinked with other countries and between provinces,” said Angela McLaughlin, the University of British Columbia doctoral student who co-authored the paper with supervisor Dr. Jeff Joy and others.

“People have family to visit, other reasons to travel,” she said. “This just highlights that each one of those actions is a probabilistic event where the virus could be transmitted. It’s incredible the extent to which it has done that.”

She and colleagues advocate more stringent actions to keep the pathogen out, such as the 14-day hotel quarantines on international travellers imposed by Australia and New Zealand.

“Every single importation was an opportunity that the government had to intervene,” said McLaughlin.

“Early and strict interventions are the way to go,” she added. “If you do early and strict, you don’t have to have this stretched-out, low-level lockdown going on for so long, which I think has generated so much public apathy around the issue.”

The study, posted on a “preprint” site and not yet published in a peer-reviewed journal, looked at activity up until this February. It documented the likely first arrival in Canada — in the last week of December — of the B.1.1.7 “U.K.” variant of concern that’s now spreading far and wide. But the researchers lacked access to data allowing them to analyze the current wave of infection linked to such variants.

Until recently, genetic changes in the virus in Canada appear to have been mostly benign, not making it more transmissible or virulent.

To do the work, scientists from UBC, Western University and University of Arizona tapped into an international, public repository of virus sequences, a collection McLaughlin calls “unprecedented in the history of humankind.”

The huge database includes sequences submitted by labs in Canada and around the world. Differences between the genetic blueprints were used to build “family trees” of SARS-CoV-2 mutations, which helped the team identify “sublineages” – groups of viruses that resulted from a common import into Canada.

They were able to trace 402 outbreak-causing sublineages back to other countries. That number is undoubtedly an underestimate, the paper said, as genetic sequencing is carried out for only about one per cent of positive tests in Canada, and many COVID infections are asymptomatic and never even diagnosed.

The researchers also found 1,380 “singletons” — virus that came into Canada but did not appear to cause more cases after arriving. Some of the people bringing in those versions of the bug may have never given it to anyone else. It’s also possible many did trigger virus spread here, but that the genetic sequencing documenting such transmission didn’t happen, said McLaughlin.

Of the 402 outbreak-causing sublineages, 218 likely originated from the U.S., about 54 per cent of the total, the study concluded. Another 29 introduced variants came from Russia, 25 each from Italy and India, 22 from the U.K. and 15 each from Spain and France, the paper indicates.

Only two sublineages originated from China itself, they concluded. (However, China has been widely criticized for initial attempts to obscure the emergence of the virus in Wuhan and downplay its seriousness, allowing it to spread within and beyond the city.)

The importance of the U.S. as a source of imported virus raises difficult questions about how to make the world’s longest undefended border more virus-tight. The massive trade between the two countries means constant comings and goings, with largely no public-health restrictions.

But if data indicates that truck drivers are a significant source of virus importation, it might make sense to have handovers of freight at the border so the drivers themselves don’t cross over, said McLaughlin.

Quebec and Ontario were the destinations for about 80 per cent of the imported viruses identified by the researchers.

Meanwhile, spread between provinces also seemed key to the ongoing epidemic, the study indicated.

McLaughlin said restrictions on travel between provinces, as the Atlantic region imposed, would have helped greatly.

UCP VS UCP

Council in Alberta environment minister's town wants better coal consultation

ROCKY MOUNTAIN HOUSE, Alta. — A town council in Alberta Environment Minister Jason Nixon's backyard wants broader consultation over the government's plans for open-pit coal mining in the Rocky Mountains.

© Provided by The Canadian Press

On Tuesday, the community of Rocky Mountain House voted to send a letter to the United Conservative government asking for a more extensive evaluation of its proposal to dramatically expand the industry. Talks would go far beyond what has so far been offered.

"I would like to see us have extensive consultations with the public, First Nations and industry," Mayor Tammy Burke told council in the largest municipality of Nixon's constituency.

The letter asks that there be input on land disruption, water quality, air quality and health effects on humans and wildlife. It asks for a cost-benefit analysis that would consider employment in the industry, economic revenue, effect on tourism and potential recreational development.

The province has begun a public consultation on coal mines, which would export steelmaking coal to largely Asian markets. The panel leading the dialogue is only allowed to consider concerns that fall under the Department of Energy, which automatically rules out most of the issues Rocky Mountain House is concerned about.

"I believe in responsible resource development," said Coun. Merrin Fraser. "The steps that have been taken to prevent consultation on land and water use are not responsible.

"Risking the health and future of our land for a volatile Chinese market ... I'm just not sure that that is a responsible financial decision.

Nixon's office did not respond to a request for comment on Rocky Mountain House's concerns.

Last spring, the government revoked a policy that had protected the summits and eastern slopes of the Rockies since 1976. Public pressure eventually forced Energy Minister Sonya Savage to reinstate the policy, but she did not take back coal leases on thousands of hectares sold in the meantime.

More than two dozen municipalities and six First Nations have expressed some level of concern about expanded mining in the region, which is renowned for its beauty and is the source of most of Alberta's drinking water.

Those communities include Clearwater County, the district that comprises the bulk of Nixon's constituency.

Nixon has suggested no further consultations will be required. Asked at a meeting of the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association last week about the possibility of a second, environmentally focused set of talks, Nixon pointed to the province's current regulations and implied they are adequate to deal with new coal mines.

In an interview, Burke said council has received more than 50 letters on the issue.

"We just want to make sure that everybody that wants a say in this, has a say in this," she said. "It doesn't sound like people are happy with the consultations that are taking place."

Town council does acknowledge the economic benefits a coal mine could bring.

"This is a large economic item for us, so we can't just dismiss those economic benefits," said Coun. Len Phillips. "I think there's a way of having both."

Fraser questioned whether the province can ensure mining on the landscape would be environmentally benign.

"I feel like we're being (told) by the UCP, 'Trust us. We've got it under control,'" she said.

"But we have evidence time and time again where the government has failed to intervene, failed to apply their own regulations, failed to step in where that is their responsibility."

Government data shows Alberta Environment knew for years about high levels of contaminants from coal mines in at least three rivers and failed to act. Monitoring stations on those rivers were cut instead.

More recently, satellite imagery has shown that permitted road density from coal exploration is already higher than legal limits.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published April 21, 2021.

— By Bob Weber in Edmonton. Follow @row1960 on Twitter

The Canadian Press

Italian man accused of skipping work for 15 years straight

Find a job that will forget you’re on the payroll, and you’ll never work a day in your life.

© Alfonso Di Vincenzo/KONTROLAB/LightRocket via Getty Images A view of the Arnaldo Pugliese Ciaccio Hospital in Catanzaro.

Italian prosecutors say they've busted a man who raked in roughly 538,000 euros (US$647,000) over 15 years without ever showing up to his hospital job, in one of the most egregious cases of absentee abuse they've ever seen.

Police have dubbed Salvatore Scumace, 67, the "king of absentees" for his allegedly rampant abuse of public-sector funds in the city of Catanzaro, ANSA News reports. Authorities say the man used threats to ensure that he would not be docked for missing work at the local hospital, and that he later fell off his employer's radar altogether while still collecting paycheques.

Scumace's job — at least on paper — was as a safety officer at the Pugliese Ciaccio hospital, Italy's Unione Sarda newspaper reports.

The suspect faces charges of abuse of office, forgery and aggravated extortion in connection with the scheme, The Guardian reports. Six other managers at the hospital are also under investigation for their alleged involvement, officials said.

Authorities say the suspect's absentee abuse started in 2005, when a "distinguished person" allegedly threatened the hospital director and warned her not to file a disciplinary report against Scumace. Police say the director complied and turned a blind eye to his absences, and that the suspect simply never showed up for work again — while still being paid.

The director eventually retired and her successor took over with no knowledge that there was a ghost on the payroll. Human resources also did not notice, police said.

It's unclear when the scheme came to light, but the hospital launched disciplinary action against the man last year and also alerted the authorities. He was fired in October and later arrested as part of an investigation dubbed Operation Part Time.

Investigators say the arrest came after they conducted extensive witness interviews and reviewed attendance logs at the hospital.

 

Bjorn’s Corner: The challenges of Hydrogen. Part 11. Emissions

DOWNLOAD

October 2, 2020, ©. Leeham News: In our series on Hydrogen as an energy store for airliners we look deeper at the emissions from a hydrogen airliner and compare it to the emissions from today’s carbon fueled aircraft.

Figure 1. The three Hydrogen concepts from Airbus. Source: Airbus.

Emissions of a Hydrogen aircraft

In Part 9 of the series, we wrote the emission from a hydrogen-fueled Turbofan or Turboprop take care of the CO2 problem (no CO2 emissions), it lowers NOx emissions and increases the emission of water, H2O, into the atmosphere.

Figure 2 gives a more detailed view of the emissions from a carbon fueled and hydrogen-fueled airliner.

Figure 2. Emissions from a kerosene-fueled turbofan and hydrogen turbofan. Source: Airbus Cryoplane study.

Today’s airliner that burns 1 kg of jet fuel emits 3.16kg of CO2, 1.24kg H20, Carbon Monoxide, Soot, Sulphuric Acid, 11.2kg of Nitrogen and air. This compares with no CO2, 2.6 times more water, one fifth the amount of NOx, and 9.4kg Nitrogen and air from a hydrogen-fueled engine (both burn the same amount of energy, producing the same thrust). A hydrogen-based airliner is a clear improvement in terms of emissions.

The only caveat is the increased amount of water vapor in the exhaust. Water vapor has a greenhouse effect in the atmosphere but it disappears 200 times faster than CO2, and studies show that water vapor in the atmosphere is not the key problem from the increase in water emissions.

It’s rather contrails (ice crystals that form from water vapor condensation on nuclei in the turbofan exhaust) that are contributing to an increase in the greenhouse effect. Though hydrogen-fueled engines put out more water vapor, the ice crystals formed when the conditions create contrails are larger. This changes the effects of the contrails so they are thinner and contribute less to the greenhouse effect than the same amount of water vapor from a carbon fueled engine.

The combined effect of the increase in water vapor and the formation of contrails, considering the different types of ice crystals formed, is a reduction in the greenhouse effect from hydrogen-fueled airliners by around 20%.

I have taken these results from both the Airbus Cryoplane study (from 2000) and the EU’s study, released in May 2020. Both documents say these results are according to the best knowledge but this subject needs more research.

Summary

To summarize these and other studies, hydrogen-fueled airliners, as Airbus’ ZEROe concepts in Figure 2, would:

• Reduce CO2 emissions by 100%
• Reduce NOx emission by 80%
• Reduce the greenhouse effects from emitted water vapor by 20%

The above assumes the same efficiency aircraft and engines, transporting the same amount of passengers the same distance, fueled by Jet A1 kerosene alternatively hydrogen.

This assumes both aircraft fly the same trajectory, meaning the hydrogen airliner is not adapting it’s mission profile to avoid contrail creation (for instance, change flight level to one that does not produce contrails in areas where conditions predict contrail creation).

Bjorn’s Corner: The challenges of Hydrogen. Part 11. Emissions - Leeham News and Analysis

Hydrogen: The Future Fuel | Penn State University (psu.edu) 

David Pacchioli, Dana Bauer, Emily Wiley

June 08, 2005

Beyond petroleum

Is hydrogen the answer?

"I will get right to the point," declared Nobel laureate Richard Smalley, speaking before Congress. "Energy is the single most important problem facing humanity today. We must find an alternative to oil. We need to somehow provide clean, abundant, low-cost energy to the six billion people that live on the planet today, and the 10-plus billion that are expected by the middle of this century."

Smalley has a philosophical ally in Bruce Logan, Kappe professor of environmental engineering and director of Penn State's Hydrogen Energy Center. "When U.S. oil production peaked 30 years ago, demand exceeded output and the result was an oil crisis," Logan reminds us. "But when global oil production peaks, in the next ten to twenty years, we'll have another, more serious, crisis."

The race for solutions is on, and while ideas may diverge, the parameters are clear: The new energy source must be cheap, renewable, and environmentally clean. Non-polluting hydrogen—energy-dense and the most abundant element in nature—meets two of these requirements in spades. But whether it can be produced and used inexpensively is the crux of a large and growing effort in research, in the U.S. and abroad.

"It can't happen without breakthroughs," Logan acknowledges. "We need cheaper and better materials" in every facet of development—for the catalysts and membranes that make up fuel cells; for the safe, efficient storage of hydrogen aboard vehicles; for the solar cells that will be key to hydrogen production. Another significant challenge is to develop the necessary infrastructure for hydrogen delivery.

Under the umbrella of the Hydrogen Energy Center, Penn State researchers are working on all these problems, ranging from fundamental materials chemistry to collaborations with Pennsylvania's growing fuel-cell industry.

Though their goal may be thirty years away, Logan and his colleagues are clear about one thing: "The time to lay the groundwork is now."

We're pleased to offer our readers a glimpse at their future-building activities.

California’s ‘hydrogen highway’ never happened. Could 2020 change that?

BY JULIE CART

JANUARY 9, 2020

Despite a $300 million state investment, hydrogen transportation has lagged. Image by wildpixel, istockphoto.com


IN SUMMARY

Climate-friendly hydrogen-powered cars haven’t taken off. But proponents say this may be the year when the “fuel of the future” finally arrives.

California has been dreaming of a clean, modern hydrogen highway since 2004, when former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger ordered preparations for a traffic jam of zero-emission, hydrogen-fueled cars, buses and trucks.

That revolution, part of the battle against climate change, never materialized. The technology remains expensive and hasn’t gained wide traction, ceding the green-transportation crown to battery-powered electric vehicles, which are more widely available and support an ever-growing recharging network.

But with successful pilot projects using hydrogen buses and freight trucks, and car manufacturers preparing to expand model options in the tiny consumer car market, proponents say this may be the year when the “fuel of the future” finally arrives.

Price is an issue. A regular city bus may cost $450,000. A comparable hydrogen bus is more like $1 million.

“Its moment is due. You are starting to see a sea change, as we get more aggressive about meeting our zero-carbon goals,” said Tyson Eckerle, deputy director of zero-emission infrastructure in the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development.

The state has continued to foster the promise of hydrogen fuel to pry carbon from transportation, California’s biggest source of planet-warming emissions. It has spent more than $300 million in the past 10 years funding rebates for those who buy or lease hydrogen cars, construction of refueling stations and the purchase of transit buses, as well as subsidizing development of hydrogen-driven freight trucks.

And, at the moment, California is the hydrogen market: All but a handful of the 7,800 hydrogen-powered cars in the U.S. are here. For car-centric Californians, there’s much to like: Hydrogen vehicles fuel up in a few minutes — as opposed to hours of charging for most electric vehicles — and their efficiency affords a long driving range.

Hydrogen as a transportation fuel has many applications. More than 26,000 hydrogen-powered forklifts are whirring around warehouses today, for example. The U.S. space program has long used hydrogen as rocket fuel. And more than a decade of testing hydrogen engines in transit bus fleets has produced results that surpassed projections, exceeding time without major repairs or replacement needed as compared to diesel engines. Hydrogen-fueled trucks are lighter, which translates into efficiency for long-haul drivers.

Eckerle said the dozen or so state programs encourage hydrogen technology to increase consumer choice — “seed-planting.” This investment will soon be eclipsed by that of private companies, he added.
Support nonprofit journalism in California

We rely on your generous support to cover the stories that matter most to you. If you find our work valuable in these difficult times, please support our journalism.

The challenge for the automotive industry is overcoming basic market forces. There may be nearly 8,000 hydrogen cars on California roads, but that’s a microscopic number amid the state’s 35 million registered vehicles.

The cars are not easy to find, nor are the fueling stations: California has only 44 such stations, mainly in populous cities. It’s nearly impossible to fuel up a hydrogen car at home, so a broad network of stations is critical to wider adoption, experts say.

One reason motorists may not notice the hydrogen cars in their midst is that hydrogen-fueled Toyotas, Hondas and Hyundais don’t look much different from other sedans. That obscurity could end this summer, though, when hydrogen cars and shuttle buses built in Japan will be showcased at the Tokyo Olympics. Even the Olympic Torch will be lit with a hydrogen flame.

The international exposure, coupled with increased consumer education from manufacturers, could catapult hydrogen to front-of-mind for car buyers.

“We are at a really interesting point right now,” said Keith Malone, spokesman for the California Fuel Cell Partnership, which brings together state agencies, vehicle manufacturers and natural gas companies that make hydrogen fuel. “It’s no longer about proving the technology. It’s about bringing the technology to scale to drive down costs.”

Hydrogen fuel is much more efficient than gasoline, but it’s also four times more expensive, roughly equivalent to about $16 a gallon. Even though hydrogen cars, which run electric engines, have cruising ranges of more than 350 miles — longer than any battery-electric and some gas-fueled vehicles — the cost of a fillup is significant.

Aaron Slavin fuels his hydrogen-powered Toyota Mrai. Photo by Julie Cart, CalMatters

Incentives have eased that financial hit somewhat. Manufacturers offer refueling cards loaded with three years’ worth of credit, and the state offers a $4,500 clean-car rebate. That rebate mostly offsets the first year of leasing a hydrogen vehicle, which most drivers choose over purchasing. New hydrogen cars are in the $60,000 range, and lack the variety of model options available for battery-powered electric cars.

Aaron Slavin and his wife, who live in the Los Angeles suburb of Altadena, made a spreadsheet to weigh the pros and cons of driving a hydrogen-fueled car and concluded that continuing to own a gas-electric hybrid “didn’t pencil out.”

“I’m a big fan of this car; I preach about them,” Aaron Slavin said, while refueling his 2017 Toyota Mirai at a one-bay hydrogen pump tucked into a conventional gas station in South Pasadena.

Slavin, a performing-arts producer, said he is a perfect candidate for the car — self employed, with no regular commute, and with a hybrid SUV as backup.

The second car became critical last year when an explosion at fuel-production facility choked supplies for months, leaving some hydrogen stations with empty tanks, stranding some drivers or necessitating long trips to alternative stations. The crisis, which some drivers dubbed the “hydropocalypse,” sent Slavin to a smartphone app that provided a real-time inventory of fuel at each station.

That fuel hiccup has been resolved, but it raised a red flag. “Our lease is up in April, and I really have to give some thought to what we’ll do,” Slavin said. “I like the car, but I’m concerned about the fuel situation.”

Most hydrogen fuel is made using methane, the worst of the planet-warming gases, and some environmental groups object to it.

Producing energy from hydrogen has long been an enticing goal. After all, hydrogen is the world’s most abundant element, it’s energy-dense yet lightweight and, when used in transportation, emits not greenhouse gases but tiny pools of water.

But there’s a carbon backstory to this clean-burning fuel. Even though after it is formulated it powers zero-emission electric motors, about 95% of hydrogen fuel is made with an energy-intensive process that relies on methane, the worst of the planet-warming gases. That makes it difficult for some environmental groups to support hydrogen vehicles.

“We need to get methane out of the system, not establish a dependence on producing more,” said Kathryn Phillips, Director of the Sierra Club in California. “If you look at hydrogen fuel cells through an environmental lens, right now it’s not the best use of state funds.”

Proponents respond in two ways: While the state transitions to a zero-carbon economy, why not capture and use methane that today is spewing, unchecked, into the atmosphere from oil and gas facilities and landfills? Why not switch to a process that doesn’t require methane and instead uses the state’s surplus of solar power to do it, rendering the manufacturing clean and green?

Even with the advantages of faster refueling, lighter weight and longer range than battery electrics or gasoline cars, hydrogen vehicles can’t compete in a critical category: price. A conventional city bus may carry a price tag of $450,000. A hydrogen bus with the same specifications runs closer to $1 million.

To Lewis Fulton, a transportation researcher at UC Davis, hydrogen presents “several different chicken-egg problems at the same time.”

Until more cars are produced and purchased, he said, there won’t be more hydrogen fueling stations. And until there are enough fueling stations, consumers may worry they’ll be stranded and won’t feel comfortable driving the cars.

“The only way to solve it is a really massive policy push,” Fulton said. “There’s already a fairly big one going on in the state, but I don’t know if it’s big enough.”

California’s efforts to encourage the hydrogen car market could be thwarted as part of its ongoing battle with the Trump administration, which last year withdrew the state’s authority to set its own tailpipe emissions standards. Car makers who sided with the feds in favor of lower emissions rules will pay a price by being excluded from the state’s vehicle fleet.

Toyota, which took Washington’s side, would be left out at a time when the company is ramping up its hydrogen program and, by dint of its status as a major international car maker, is expected to significantly raise consumer awareness about hydrogen vehicles.

Proponents downplayed the issue. Eckerle admitted, “It is an elephant in the room.” But he added that the state has no indication from car makers that they intend to back away from their commitment to making hydrogen vehicles.

“It’s a bump in the road,” he said.



Julie Cart
julie@calmatters.org
Julie Cart joined CalMatters as a projects and environment reporter in 2016 after a long career at the Los Angeles Times, where she held many positions: sportswriter, national correspondent and environment... More by Julie Cart

THE PAST AND FUTURE OF STEEL

Analysis
20 September 2020

We build everything from railroads to lunchboxes with steel, and for good reason: it’s strong, flexible and easily mass produced. But the iron production necessary to create steel is majorly polluting the planet. And it’s almost impossible to replace the material because we need it to keep building. So how do we move forward?
We can’t stop using steel. Here’s how we can make it the foundation of a new, sustainable iron age

Henry Bessemer was never cut out for school. He had better things to do, so he never finished. Instead, by the age of 17, he had gone into business for himself – as an inventor. By the time he was 30, he had invented the sugar cane extruder, a process for making gold paint from bronze powder and a method for manufacturing pencils from graphite. Before he was 40, he had 110 patents and a small fortune to his name.

But all that was merely prelude. In 1856, at age 43, Bessemer set off a revolution with a material that was to completely change and eventually dominate our cities, our buildings, our engineering, our tools – in a word, the whole of human society.

“The magnitude and importance of Mr Bessemer’s invention can hardly be overstated,” The Times wrote on 23 August 1856.

He nearly blew up his workshop in London’s St. Pancras before he achieved what he was trying to do: create steel simply, and cheaply, by blowing air through a vat of molten pig iron. It made a tremendous amount of noise and sent more than a few sparks flying (imagine blowing air on hot barbecue coals, but on steroids), but it got the job done; he’d invented a manageable, economical way to manufacture quality steel.

Before Bessemer, steel production was reserved to a very small circle of ironmasters with the skills and the tools to regulate the amount of carbon in iron. Steel is, in essence, iron with a very low carbon content. It’s a very valuable material because it combines the best of two worlds: it’s harder than simple wrought iron, but still flexible – unlike the brittle cast iron made in factories.

So Bessemer’s steel could not only be made more efficiently than earlier iron production methods, but the process was a lot easier. And it didn’t even take any extra fuel to produce in larger quantities – all you needed was air. It was thanks to Bessemer’s invention that steel could be mass produced for the first time. In 1867, a tonne of steel would have cost approximately €2,500 in today’s terms, but by 1884, that price had fallen to just €750.

That’s how we came to live in a world of steel. The Brooklyn Bridge, the Empire State Building, the Chrysler Building – steel makes it all possible. Steel went into the Titanic and still goes into the hulls of every modern container ship – plus the millions of containers they carry. Look at any concrete building, and the chances are that there’s steel reinforcement inside that concrete holding it up. Steel makes up the 1,051,767 km of rail lines in the world, not to mention the trains driving on them. Almost everything we use to get around has steel in it, from cars (900 kg on average) to bicycles. We store our food in steel containers, and we heat it up in steel pans. If you typically eat with a fork, you put a piece of steel in your mouth every day.

We build our whole world with steel. We’re also destroying our world with steel, because the history of iron and steel is one long, sordid story of sabre-rattling, megalomaniacs and business tycoons – and pollution, a whole lot of pollution.

Three times that iron changed the world

Strictly speaking, we can’t just talk about “steel” as if it’s all the same material. There are actually over 3,500 different types of steel, and the vast majority of them didn’t exist 20 years ago. One thing we can say, though, is that all of them start with iron. Any conversation about steel starts with iron.

Humans have been using iron and steel for thousands of years. To the Egyptians, iron was a divine metal. In ancient Egypt, iron was referred to as bia en pet (metal from the sky). That sounds like the stuff of legends, but it’s actually fairly accurate. The earliest iron was collected from meteorites; Tutankhamen was buried with a dagger made from meteoric iron. It was only hundreds of years later that people started digging into the earth for iron ore, from which they learned to extract the iron using heat.

Iron changed the world three times in three different forms: first, wrought iron; then, cast iron; and finally, Bessemer steel. Three names, roughly in chronological order, that refer to the production process. Few materials have had as much of an impact on the course of human history.
Few materials have had as much of an impact on the course of human history as iron

The first time that iron transformed human society was during the long transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age. Archaeologists see the Bronze Age as a period of trading and connections, thanks mainly to copper and tin, the two relatively rare metals that are combined to make bronze. That’s the metal that went into the tools, weapons and jewellery of that time. To the people of 3,000 years ago, these materials were what oil and gas are to us today, and they were what tied prehistoric Europe together.

The demand for copper and tin drove an ever-increasing concentration of power and wealth in a few key places in Europe that controlled the trade of these rare metals. These power centres stood out – literally and figuratively. Known as “hillforts”, remnants of them are scattered across Europe and studied by archaeologists today. One example is Mont Lassois near Vix in France, where, in 1953, archaeologists found the burial mound of a young woman who had been interred around 500BC. Among the treasures her grave revealed were a torc (neck ring) made of nearly half a kilogram of solid gold, as well as a 209 kg bronze vessel for mixing wine and water known as a krater. The grave at Mont Lassois is a snapshot of the twilight of an elite that, for a while, controlled the trade in bronze – a monument to transitory greatness, the prehistoric equivalent of a golden hotel rising up from the Las Vegas sands.

When iron came along, it broke this world apart.

Iron is in abundant supply, making up a full 5% of the Earth’s crust. In a matter of a few decades, all the Bronze Age power centres fell. By around 500BC, they were gone. In many cases, their demise was a violent affair, because iron makes better weapons than bronze (and more importantly, more of them).

The old ties of Europe frayed, and the old order fragmented. Europe’s peoples began producing their own iron, making their own weapons and controlling their own regions. The Belgae, Boii, Frisii, Helvetii: these are the people who gave their names to the lands we know today as Belgium, Bohemia, Frisia, Switzerland.

A second Iron Age ...

Through the centuries that followed, all iron production was small scale. Iron is made by heating iron ore in clay or stone smelters. This releases the raw, molten iron within. Smelters like these are fuelled by charcoal.

In 1720, there were 60 smelters operating in England that together burned a total of 830,000 tonnes of wood to produce the charcoal used for their furnaces. At the start of the Industrial Revolution, the limiting factor was not a lack of iron ore; there simply weren’t enough trees to burn.

A crucial technological advancement was the coke-fired furnace. With this new fuel, pioneered by British entrepreneur Abraham Darby in 1709, iron production skyrocketed. In 1700, total British iron production was 12,000 tonnes per year. By 1850, it had soared to 2 million.

An additional benefit is that the furnace gets hot enough to heat the iron to its melting point, which means you can cast it. So, suddenly, you can make a lot more things, from ploughshares to bridge spans. In 1851, as part of the first Great Exhibition at the Crystal Palace in London, there was a special presentation showing off all the great things you could make with cast iron, including the Crystal Palace itself, a spectacular building of cast iron and plate glass that was a London landmark until 1936.

You need cast iron to build steam engines and ships. And once the first cast-iron bridge appeared, everybody wanted one. Most of all, the Industrial Revolution needed rails – lots and lots of rails. The first intercity railway line went down in 1830, with 56 km stretching from Liverpool to Manchester. Just 30 years later, there were over 100,000 km of railway lines around the world. At about 25 kg of iron per metre, that’s about 2.5 billion kgs of iron.


In short, the Industrial Revolution was really just a second Iron Age.

And that was still before Bessemer almost blew up his laboratory inventing a better and cheaper form of iron: steel.

When Bessemer presented his invention to the British Association for the Advancement of Science, the crème de la crème of British science and industry, he told them: “The manufacture of iron in this country has attained such an important position that any improvement in this branch of our national industry cannot fail to be a source of general interest.” He wasn’t wrong.
… and a third

Until well into the 19th century, it was only highly skilled craftsmen who had the ability to produce quality iron and steel.

Bessemer’s invention didn’t just kick off the third Iron Age; he also started the ball rolling on a revolution in overall knowledge about the processes at work within iron and steel. The invention of X-ray imaging in 1905 made it possible to look inside the metal and observe its crystalline structures. From then on, craftsmanship went hand-in-hand with science – and the partnership proved extremely fruitful.

At that point, advancements really started to move fast. Only a few years after Bessemer’s invention, the Siemens-Martin process came along, making another method of producing steel on an industrial scale. Later, another man found a way to improve Bessemer’s method to allow it to handle even the previously problematic phosphorus-rich iron ore. Soon, cheap steel was pouring into the market at a mind-boggling pace. Fortuitously, the demand was there.

Once again, most of that demand was for rails, but steel was also vital to the shipbuilding industry, and later, the automotive industry. Steel ploughs were soon digging into the Great Plains of America, even as they kicked off a revolution in the construction industry. In 1885, steel made construction of the first 10-storey building in New York City possible, and the skyscraper was born.

Check out A Nation of Steel: The Making of Modern America for a good survey of the dramatic impact of steel in the development of modern America

This is where the steel magnates began to arise – families like Thyssen, Krupp, Carnegie and Tata, but also names like Gillette, who came up with the idea of using cheap plate steel to manufacture disposable razors.

Any self-respecting industrialised country had to produce steel. Steel is manly. Steel is national pride.


Perhaps the most exquisite ode to this material can be seen today in the heart of Europe: the Atomium, one of Brussels’ icons, built in 1958 for the World’s Fair. It’s a giant model of an iron crystal, a hundred metres tall, made from stainless steel. It’s apt because in a very real way, the European Union started with the European Coal and Steel Community, established by the Treaty of Paris in 1951.

Europe’s bones are steel. It holds the continent together – literally, in the form of thousands of kilometres of railway lines, and figuratively, in the economic sense. It’s hard but mouldable, and with a little energy, it can even be made fluid, democratic, modern. The society in ancient Europe that was broken with iron is now being rebuilt from steel: a united Europe.

But what has that cost us?

Steel, the great polluter

There’s one big problem that all these Iron Ages have in common: the mountains of pollution that iron and steel leave behind.

The rolling hills of Tuscany are both rich in mineral wealth and heavily contaminated, and they have been since before recorded history began. On Elba, soil samples still contain measurable levels of pollution from third century BC iron production. Meanwhile, on the mainland, a woman who lived in 350BC was found to have heavy metals contamination in her hair, one of the medical indications of heavy metal poisoning.

Iron production was responsible for widespread deforestation in 16th century England. It’s the reason why the inhabitants of Sussex requested the king ban furnaces in 1548. They had seen that when you build a furnace, all the trees in a four km radius around it simply go up in smoke. This was one of the original climate protests.

Now, in the 21st century, we have taken that pollution to the next level. China, the world’s leading steel producer, is choking on its own steel – literally. The air in Beijing has a content of fine particulates that is far above the WHO’s standards for human health, and it’s not just coal power stations: the coal-driven steel industry is the primary culprit.

In case you were wondering, steel also accounts for 7% of total global CO2 emissions.





So why do we keep using it? The answer is simple: steel is ridiculously cheap. To produce a ton of steel in a modern steel mill, you need 1370 kg of iron ore, 600 kg of cokes, 270 kg of limestone and 125 kg of scrap. That makes the cost of a tonne of steel €500 – in other words, 50 eurocents per kilogram. A kilo of potatoes will actually cost you more.

And there’s no end in sight. As urbanisation spreads across Asia and Africa, demand for steel is only going to go up. Even in the EU, we haven’t managed to temper our love affair with steel. Although European steel production has declined by 50% since 1950, we’re not actually using any less of it. In fact, per capita steel consumption in the EU increased from 278 kg in 2012 to 310 kg in 2019. And the EU is the world’s biggest steel importer, bringing in 40 million tonnes in 2019.

In that same year, worldwide production was 1.8 billion tonnes. A steel industry forecast predicts that this number will double by 2050.

But when you buy your tonne of steel for €500, be sure to read the fine print: it also comes with 1.85 tonnes of CO2 emissions. And that’s despite the fact that production of iron and steel has become much cleaner and more efficient over the years. It’s the paradox of efficiency. What do we gain if we just use that much more?
The good news is: there’s a sustainable way

We’re simply too dependent on steel. Whether we could meet our climate targets without steel is a very real question. For example, have you ever thought about what wind turbines are made out of?

In his hard-hitting piece "What I see when I see a wind turbine", Vaclav Smil does the math on what goes into building one. The large 5 mw model contains no less than 900 tonnes of steel – and that took a little under 700 tonnes of coal to make. “The machines themselves are pure embodiments of fossil fuels,” he explains dryly.

But could we move away from steel?

“Would we want to?” is Erik Offerman’s answer. He’s a materials expert at Delft University of Technology and something of a 21st-century blacksmith.

“Steel is strong, cheap and an amazingly versatile material,” he says. “And because it is completely recyclable, it fits into any story about a circular economy.”

He’s right: steel is not only the most used metal in the world, but the most re-used as well. The big advantage of steel (and of metals in general) is that they can be recycled again and again. Even ancient peoples were well aware and did so extensively. I wrote an article about this, which you can read hereMaybe steel and sustainability can go together after all.

But there’s a “but”.

To keep steel recyclable, it needs to be kept as pure as possible. Other elements are often added to iron, like silicon and manganese. Chromium, vanadium, niobium, nickel and molybdenum are added to give steel various properties, making it rust-resistant, stronger or more ductile. These kinds of specialised steel alloys are harder to recycle, and it’s easy to see why: if you melt down a pile of random steel alloys, you end up with a hodgepodge of different kinds of steel with no way to know what properties it will have. That makes low-grade steel, which can then only be used in low-grade applications like concrete reinforcement.

There’s a lot of innovative research being done to find ways of keeping steel as recyclable as possible. Offerman Hear Offerman talk about his work in a podcastis one of the people working on this. He is finding ways to control the microstructure of steel using milling and temperature to produce high-quality steel types with a limited palette of alloying elements. The aim is to not only make the steel easier to recycle, but to use less of it.

And there are other paths to a more sustainable steel.

Just like in the 18th century, what is required is a critical change in fuel consumption and the process of reducing iron ore. The iron and steel industry sucks up a lot of energy, and too much of it comes from fossil fuels.

One promising emerging technology is hydrogen-based steel production. The Hydrogen Breakthrough Ironmaking Technology (HYBRIT) has shown that sustainably produced hydrogen can be used to produce steel. HYBRIT is a joint venture of three relatively small Swedish firms with big plans to liberate the Swedish iron and steel industry from dependence on fossil fuels.

The pilot project was launched in 2018, but for the time being, “green steel” still remains 20-30% more expensive than ordinary steel. HYBRIT says that its goal is to be producing this steel at competitive prices by 2040.

Then there’s all the electric arc furnaces all over the world, which are relatively small-scale production facilities using electricity instead of cokes. The electric arc furnaces in Europe take up about 40% of the produced steel.

Their operation depends on melting down scrap: in essence, recycling. Expanding this production would help but would mean bringing steel production back to Europe (what economists like to call “reshoring”).
We have to move into a fourth – sustainable – Iron Age

Green steel and implementing reuse on a massive scale – as far as the technology goes, we can do this. But this transition also demands a new way of thinking: circular instead of linear, long-term instead of short-term.


For green steel, we have to choose sustainable over efficient; less and better has to win out over cheap and more. These are choices we can make. We can even make it the defining characteristic of “Made in Europe” steel.

But it will require a mentality that doesn’t really resonate with the man of steel, so it means rethinking everything about our whole concept of iron and steel. That image as the material of weapons of war, of heavy industry, of the symbol of national pride and economic progress for many nations – all that has to go.

That’s how we can turn steel from the problem child in terms of pollution into the foundation of a strong, sustainable world – a world built on a clean material that can be recycled endlessly.

That’s what a sustainable fourth Iron Age looks like. But unfortunately, that’s still a long way off.

Translated from the Dutch by  Kyle Wohlmut.

ARCHAEOLOGIST 

Maikel Kuijpers