Thursday, October 07, 2021

H2 UPDATES

IEA: Low-Carbon Hydrogen Needs Major Cost Cuts

The use of low-carbon hydrogen and ammonia in fossil fuel plants could be key to ensure security in electricity supply while the world is moving toward cleaner energy sources, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said in a new report. The agency noted, however, that production costs of low-carbon hydrogen and ammonia fuels need to fall significantly in order to be competitive with other forms of energy, including fossil fuels.

Low-carbon fuels can play an especially important role in countries or regions where the thermal fleet is young, or when the availability of low-carbon dispatchable resources is constrained, for example in East and Southeast Asia, the IEA said in its report.

“By 2030 the cost of low-carbon hydrogen and ammonia for use as chemical feedstock becomes comparable to those of unabated production from fossil fuels. However, for use as a fuel, they are expected to remain significantly more expensive than projected prices of coal and natural gas in 2030 in the SDS [Sustainable Development Scenario],” the international agency noted. 

By the end of this decade, low-carbon hydrogen and ammonia are likely to remain expensive energy carriers for power generation, the IEA says.

The agency’s findings also suggest that “a portfolio of policies is required to compensate for cost gaps.”

Decisive government action is necessary to support low-carbon hydrogen, the IEA said in its Global Hydrogen Review 2021 earlier this month.

Investments in hydrogen are growing, and interest is high, but additional supportive policies are needed to reduce production costs and incentivize hydrogen usage in various sectors, the agency said.

“Governments need to take rapid actions to lower the barriers that are holding low-carbon hydrogen back from faster growth, which will be important if the world is to have a chance of reaching net zero emissions by 2050,” the IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol said.

By Tsvetana Paraskova for Oilprice.com

First Look: CP’s Hydrogen Zero Emissions Locomotive

Written by Marybeth Luczak, Executive Editor

On Oct. 4, CP shared on Twitter: “Introducing CP’s new prototype hydrogen-powered line-haul locomotive: #H20EL or Hydrogen Zero Emissions Locomotive. Each design element conveys CP’s commitment to sustainability & transformational technology.”

Canadian Pacific’s (CP) H20EL, a hydrogen fuel cell-powered linehaul freight locomotive prototype, will be prepped this fall for official painting and launch, the Class I railroad reported.

CP in an Oct. 4 Twitter post provided a video rendering of the H20EL, which stands for Hydrogen Zero Emissions Locomotive (see below). It also included unit details on the “Sustainability Driven” section of its website.

The blue and green paint-scheme colors represent “sustainability, water and technology,” according to the railroad, and the angled typography of H2OEL symbolizes “movement and progress in action.”

CP’s Hydrogen Locomotive Program in December 2020 announced work on the H2OEL, a retrofit of an existing diesel-electric linehaul locomotive. The diesel prime mover and traction alternator are being replaced with hydrogen fuel cell and battery technology to power the unit’s electric traction motors. Ballard is supplying six 200-kilowatt fuel cell modules, which will provide a total of 1.2 megawatts of electricity to power the locomotive.

On March 10, 2021, CP President and CEO Keith Creel told attendees of Railway Age’s Next-Gen Freight Rail conference that the Program locomotive is expected to be operational by the end of 2022. At that time, the railroad has said it “will conduct rail service trials and qualification testing to evaluate the technology’s readiness for the freight-rail sector.”


Keith Creel, CP President and CEO and Railway Age’s 2021 Railroader of the Year.

If the concept is proven reliable, CP could produce two additional locomotives, according to Creel. While the Class I railroad is not looking to become a locomotive manufacturer, he told Railway Age conference attendees, its vision is to partner with an OEM in the future to “benefit CP and the North American [railroad] landscape.”

On the CP website, Creel noted that the project is “globally significant” and “positions CP at the leading edge of decarbonizing the freight transportation sector. CP will continue to focus on finding innovative solutions to transform our operations and implement our Climate Strategy, positioning CP and our industry as leaders for a sustainable future.”

BLUE H2
TC Energy (TSX:TRP) and Nikola to produce clean hydrogen

Senior Vice President and President, Power and Storage, Corey Hessen.
Source: TC Energy

TC Energy (TRP) and Nikola have signed a joint development agreement for large-scale clean hydrogen hubs

The U.S. and Canadian facilities will produce 150 tonnes or more of hydrogen per day to supply Nikola's forthcoming electric vehicles

The partnership hopes to jumpstart hydrogen and electric vehicle adoption across industrial sectors
Nikola Corporation designs and manufactures zero-emission battery-electric and hydrogen-electric vehicles and associated components

TC Energy is a leading energy provider across Canada, the U.S. and Mexico

TC Energy (TRP) is up by 0.52 per cent and is currently trading at $61.52 per share

TC Energy (TRP) and Nikola have signed a joint development agreement for large-scale clean hydrogen hubs.

The companies will co-develop, construct, operate and own the low-cost hydrogen production facilities in the U.S. and Canada.

The objective is to produce 150 tonnes or more of hydrogen per day to serve Nikola’s Class 8 fuel cell electric vehicles within the next five years.

The partnership intends to accelerate the adoption of hydrogen and heavy-duty zero-emission FCEVs across industrial sectors.

TC Energy will likely make use of its extensive pipeline, storage and power assets to increase the hubs' efficiency.

Potential avenues to reducing the project's carbon intensity include renewable energy, low-cost natural gas, renewable natural gas and biomass feedstocks paired with carbon capture and storage.

Pablo Koziner, Nikola's President, Energy and Commercial, stated,

"We are excited to have a strategic partnership with a North American energy leader focused on delivering low-carbon and hydrogen-based energy solutions. TC Energy offers pipeline distribution capabilities that will be essential for the cost-efficient movement of hydrogen in the future.

Today marks a major step by Nikola in accordance with its stated energy strategy for the provision of hydrogen fuel solutions to future Nikola FCEV customers and to public network fueling stations."

Corey Hessen, TC Energy’s Senior Vice President and President, Power and Storage, added,

"By leveraging our natural gas and power operations footprint, we see this new partnership as an important first step in facilitating access to affordable low-carbon production of hydrogen for the transportation and industrial sector.

TC Energy is focused on our own decarbonization efforts as well as being the provider of choice for carbon-free energy to the North American industrial, natural gas and oil sectors. Nikola as a partner and as a customer aligns well with that approach."

Nikola Corporation designs and manufactures zero-emission battery-electric and hydrogen-electric vehicles, electric vehicle drivetrains, vehicle components, energy storage systems and hydrogen station infrastructure.

TC Energy is a leading energy provider across Canada, the U.S. and Mexico.

Latest News
Media Advisory: Nikola and TC Energy Sign Joint Development Agreement for Co-Development of Large-Scale Clean Hydrogen Hubs
GlobeNewswire 13 hours ago
Nikola and TC Energy Sign Joint Development Agreement for Co-Development of Large-Scale Clean Hydrogen Hubs
PR Newswire 13 hours ago
TC Energy adjusts timing of certain Cumulative First Preferred Shares Dividends
GlobeNewswire September 23, 2021
EDP Renewables and TC Energy Execute Long-Term Agreement to Add a 297-Megawatt Wind Farm to Alberta
GlobeNewswire September 20, 2021
Media Advisory: TC Energy to divest remaining 15 per cent interest in Northern Courier Pipeline
GlobeNewswire September 16, 2021
Long-time energy partners Irving Oil and TC Energy strike a made-in-Canada agreement focused on reducing emissions and creating new value
PR Newswire August 12, 2021

Why the ‘Swiss Army knife’ of climate solutions is so controversial
By Emily Pontecorvo | News | October 5th 2021
NATIONAL OBSERVER
#1761 of 1769 articles from the Special Report:RACE AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE

As countries around the world firm up their commitments to cut carbon emissions, many are turning to an emerging solution with an uncertain future: hydrogen gas. 
Photo by akitada31 / Pixabay

This story was originally published by Grist and appears here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

As countries around the world firm up their commitments to cut carbon emissions, many are turning to an emerging solution with an uncertain future: hydrogen gas. This lesser-known fuel has been called the “Swiss Army knife” of climate solutions. It has the potential to replace fossil fuels in industrial processes, transportation, buildings, and power plants, and does not emit any greenhouse gases when it’s burned.

But this idea of an emissions-free hydrogen-fuelled world is a long way off. Currently, hydrogen is primarily used by oil refineries and in the production of fertilizer. Today, 99 per cent of the world’s supply of hydrogen is made from natural gas and coal, producing annual emissions on par with those of the United Kingdom and Indonesia combined, according to the International Energy Agency.


Scaling up cleaner ways to produce hydrogen and new ways to use it will require significant investments in research and development, and likely subsidies or a price on carbon to make it competitive with fossil fuels. The Biden administration is starting down this path, with a goal to cut the cost of clean hydrogen by 80 per cent by 2030. The bipartisan infrastructure bill that passed the Senate in early August allocates $8 billion to create four “clean hydrogen hubs” that would demonstrate its production and use in four different applications.


But with the clock ticking to prevent climate impacts from getting worse, experts are debating whether chasing after clean hydrogen for every possible use is wise. Some climate advocates are worried that it risks taking attention and resources away from technologies that are already available and could cut emissions more quickly. For example, natural gas utilities say they eventually want to deliver clean hydrogen to people’s homes to power their heaters and stoves, but electric heating and cooking appliances that can be powered by renewable electricity are already on the market now.

“We’re really rooting for hydrogen to work,” said Sasan Saadat, a senior research and policy analyst at the environmental nonprofit Earthjustice. “But we don’t want to be wasting this resource in ways just to ensure there’s a longer life for the business model of combustion-based energy incumbents.” Saadat is one of the authors of a recent report that distinguishes between the most promising, “least-regrets” ways to use clean hydrogen, and areas where policymakers should forget hydrogen and pursue other solutions.


It’s a complicated debate that turns more on politics, money, and time than it does on technology. None of the experts Grist spoke with disagreed that there’s a stronger case for using hydrogen to decarbonize some activities than others. But several said it was too early to rule out its widespread potential.

“It is reasonable to ask how people should spend taxpayer money in the most productive way,” said Julio Friedmann, a senior research scholar at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy. “But at the same time, we’re trying to do something so unprecedented and difficult that I think it is premature to amputate emerging ideas and options.”

To wrestle with these arguments, it’s important to understand clean hydrogen’s central challenge. Unlike fossil fuels, it cannot be dug out of the earth. We have to make it. And no matter how it’s made, energy is lost in the process.


Unlike the hydrogen produced with natural gas or coal today, so-called “green hydrogen” is made by zapping a water molecule with renewable electricity, splitting it into hydrogen and oxygen. With existing technology, this results in a loss of 20 to 40 per cent of the initial energy. That loss jacks up the price of green hydrogen, making it harder for it to compete with other sources of energy. It also means that relying on green hydrogen requires building a lot more wind and solar power than we might otherwise have to. Wind and solar projects already face challenges overcoming community opposition, and some countries have limited land availability to support renewables.

Another possibility is to add carbon capture technology to existing, natural gas-based hydrogen production to make so-called “blue hydrogen.” But this method requires additional energy to run the carbon capture and storage machinery. The potential climate benefits of blue hydrogen are also diminished, if not erased, by the fact that the natural gas system is rife with leaks that send the potent greenhouse gas methane into the atmosphere. Those leaks would have to be greatly reduced for the emissions math on blue hydrogen to equal “clean.”

Clean hydrogen could replace #FossilFuels for almost everything. But should it? #hydrogen #CleanHydrogen #ClimateChange


So the biggest constraint on what we use clean hydrogen for is supply. But as hard as it will be to produce cleaner varieties of hydrogen, virtually all experts agree that it is necessary for at least one reason: fertilizer. “Our demand for fertilizer isn’t going to go away,” said Rebecca Dell, the director of the industry program at the Climateworks Foundation, a philanthropic group that supports climate solutions. “We need to move that to a clean process in the future, and there isn’t really a substitute process.”


Beyond fertilizer, there’s rough consensus that clean hydrogen is a strong contender to cut emissions from many of the “hard to decarbonize” parts of the economy — activities that cannot easily be powered by clean electricity. These include long-haul trucking, shipping, aviation, and steelmaking. Hydrogen company Air Liquide, which produces both fossil fuel-based and renewable energy-based hydrogen, told Grist that producing it at scale for these uses “will then allow nascent segments to emerge and thrive.”

“Looking at end-uses one by one without considering the entire system would not allow each and any of them to benefit from one another,” spokesperson David Asselin said.

But Sara Gersen, a lawyer for Earthjustice and co-author of the organization’s recent report on the potential for hydrogen technology, said she sees a disconnect between these more clear-cut cases for clean hydrogen and the ones the fossil fuel industry is lobbying for, like burning it in power plants.

“Utilities and project proponents are trying to get approval for new fossil gas plants under the guise of, ‘Oh, maybe one day, this could be converted at some unknown cost to operate on green hydrogen,’” she said. The report mentions Danskammer, an upstate New York energy company that has proposed building a new natural gas-fired power plant and argued that it is in line with climate goals because the plant will be capable of burning a blend of clean hydrogen and natural gas, which would lower emissions and could eventually be converted to run fully on hydrogen. Entergy Texas, an electric utility, recently made a similar proposal.

“We want policymakers to shut that down and say, ‘No, you need to take advantage of the clean energy solutions that are available today,’” said Gersen. Danskammer did not respond to Grist’s request for comment.

A key argument from hydrogen’s proponents is that it can make use of existing fossil fuel infrastructure, and in some cases, utilities are repurposing existing power plants to use hydrogen. In Utah, an old coal plant is being retrofitted to run on a blend of natural gas and clean hydrogen, with a goal of eventually using 100 per cent clean hydrogen. New York State is testing blending at an existing natural gas plant in Long Island.

But blending hydrogen with natural gas is unlikely to significantly reduce carbon emissions in the near term. Jack Brouwer, director of the Advanced Power and Energy Program at the University of California, Irvine, where he conducts research on a broad range of hydrogen applications, told Grist that commercially available power plant technology can currently burn a blend of up to 30 per cent hydrogen gas and 70 per cent methane. According to a peer-reviewed study from 2019, a 30 per cent hydrogen blend would only reduce the emissions from burning natural gas by about 12 per cent.

Gas utilities are also proposing blending hydrogen into the natural gas delivered to homes and buildings. But much of the pipeline system in the U.S. is unable to carry more than about 20 per cent hydrogen, if that much, because it damages the pipes. Higher loads of hydrogen would require utilities to replace their pipelines with different materials, likely passing those costs on to customers. Customers would also need to either modify their current appliances or buy new ones.

For Brouwer, blending green hydrogen into the natural gas system, whether for power plants or homes, is still very much worth doing — not so much for the greenhouse gas benefits, but to create a new market for solar and wind power. Right now, California has a problem where prices for solar energy are getting very low in the middle of the day, at peak generation, which is discouraging the development of more solar in the state. If California set a green hydrogen blending mandate, for example, it would create more demand, since renewable energy is needed to make green hydrogen. But Brouwer said that blending clean hydrogen with natural gas is only a stepping stone. “The gas system has to be either eliminated or completely decarbonized,” he said.

Critics of hydrogen have another concern that has nothing to do with efficiency or economics or even climate change. While burning hydrogen in a power plant or furnace doesn’t emit greenhouse gases, it does emit nitrogen oxides, a pollutant that is harmful to human health. “We have this opportunity as we’re decarbonizing our economy to finally address the deep environmental injustices of burning fuel in power plants in communities that don’t benefit from the costs of low energy, but do bear the health costs of its pollution,” said Saadat.

However, Saadat and Gersen do believe clean hydrogen could be useful to the electricity grid via a different solution: Hydrogen fuel cells. Fuel cells generate electricity through a chemical reaction rather than combustion and do not produce pollution. They are much smaller systems than power plants and could be hooked up to the grid in an array, similar to grid-scale battery projects.

Gniewomir Flis, the hydrogen project manager at the Berlin-based think tank Agora Energiewende, said fuel cells are unlikely to be an option for at least a decade because at this point they are much more expensive than traditional combustion-based power plant technology. He also noted that the companies that build power plant technology are working to lower nitrogen oxide emissions, and that the industry has said it can solve this issue within the decade.

Whether for power plants or fuel cells, hydrogen can be stored underground in large quantities, much like natural gas, so many see it as a key tool to provide clean, long-duration backup electricity during seasons when there is less sun and wind to power the grid.

Perhaps the most controversial potential use for hydrogen is re-making our pipeline system to deliver it into homes and buildings. Flis called the idea of burning 100 per cent hydrogen in buildings a “politically unpalatable solution.” By his analysis, since low-carbon hydrogen is so expensive, it would either mean handing enormous subsidies to utilities or raising customers’ rates by at least five times. Flis also estimates that in Europe, installing an electric heat pump would save a customer about $23,000 to $35,000 over the next 25 years compared to installing a hydrogen boiler.

Others, however, look at the challenge of fully electrifying buildings — and more or less forcing gas utilities to shutter — and find that politically unpalatable. “Yes, electric heating is much more efficient, but we need to consider the reality of abandoning massive infrastructure in place,” said Steve Griffiths, the senior vice president of research and development at Khalifa University in the United Arab Emirates, in an email.

Griffiths stressed that many other reports have looked at the future of clean hydrogen and come to similar conclusions as Earthjustice. But he argued that these analyses lack context. “Techno-economic factors alone are not what will make hydrogen a key fuel for energy transitions,” he said, writing that social, cultural, and political factors also help or hinder energy system changes. Griffiths was the lead author of a recent review paper on hydrogen that took into account these other factors.

Michael Liebreich, an independent energy analyst and advisor, said home heating is the “front line in the hydrogen culture wars.” “There’s enormously heavy lobbying for hydrogen in heating,” he said, “because it would use the gas distribution network, and that’s a very expensive asset we built over many, many decades, and the companies who own it, don’t want to walk away.”

In the U.K., where Liebreich lives, gas utilities have been promoting a full switch to hydrogen since at least 2016, when an industry-sponsored study found that the gas network in the city of Leeds could be converted to carry low-carbon hydrogen to homes at minimal cost to customers. By 2023, a heavily subsidized pilot program in a neighborhood in Scotland will be the first to deliver 100 per cent green hydrogen to a network of about 300 homes. Participants will receive free appliances, and their gas bills will not go up for the duration of the pilot, which is set to run through 2027.

In the U.S., gas utilities in New York, Massachusetts, California, and other states have said that clean hydrogen could be part of a low-carbon fuel mix they could deliver to customers in the future to meet climate goals. They are banking on public acceptance of clean hydrogen and other lower-carbon gases, like biogas, for survival. “We don’t make money on molecules,” Jonathan Peress, the senior director of business strategy and energy policy at SoCalGas, a California gas utility, told Grist. “We make money by providing a transportation and delivery service to our customers.” SoCalGas is engaged in several partnerships to ramp up the use of hydrogen, including an initiative to make Los Angeles a hub for affordable green hydrogen. The company has proposed blending hydrogen into its gas network, but its application to the California Public Utilities Commission was dismissed in July for being incomplete.

Liebreich, who has famously ranked the potential uses of clean hydrogen into a “ladder” based on which he thinks are most likely to succeed, doesn’t see much of a future for hydrogen in buildings. But he also doesn’t see a problem with governments spending some money to support these kinds of trials because a lot of learning will come out of it. “We’ll just come to some point when they’ll say, ‘We have tried to build 67,000 homes heated by hydrogen, we now have a much better understanding of the economics — it makes no sense at all,’” he said. “Or, ‘It makes sense only in these very small numbers of niches.’”

But for Gersen and Saadat, who have watched as companies like SoCalGas have fought policies that would speed up the switch to all-electric buildings, there’s simply no time to wait around and see whether clean hydrogen will work out.

“We are really eager to make sure that the vague promise that hydrogen might be available as a decarbonization technology in the future doesn’t derail the urgent investments that we need today,” said Gersen.

These kinds of tradeoffs are difficult to suss out. There’s no guarantee that the $2 billion or so the U.S. might spend on a residential heating “clean hydrogen hub” would otherwise go to electrification or any other climate solution. Or that it’s possible to get a bill passed in Washington, D.C. right now that doesn’t involve throwing some bones to the fossil fuel industry.

But storms, droughts, wildfires, and other impacts of climate change are already intensifying. Carbon is accumulating in the atmosphere, and the emissions we can avoid today and over the next 10 years may be worth a lot more — in terms of lives lost, communities displaced, damages from natural disasters — than a breakthrough solution to cut emissions in 2030.

Editor’s note: Earthjustice is an advertiser with Grist. Advertisers have no role in Grist’s editorial decisions.
Climate change: Voices from global south muted by climate science

By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent
BBC
Published1 day ago
Issues of concern to African climate researchers are in danger of being ignored

Climate change academics from some of the regions worst hit by warming are struggling to be published, according to a new analysis.

The study looked at 100 of the most highly cited climate research papers over the past five years.

Fewer than 1% of the authors were based in Africa, while only 12 of the papers had a female lead researcher.


The lack of diverse voices means key perspectives are being ignored, says the study's author.

Researchers from the Carbon Brief website examined the backgrounds of around 1,300 authors involved in the 100 most cited climate change research papers from 2016-2020.

They found that some 90% of these scientists were affiliated with academic institutions from North America, Europe or Australia.

The African continent, home to around 16% of the world's population had less than 1% of the authors according to the analysis.

There were also huge differences within regions - of the 10 authors from Africa, eight of them were from South Africa.

When it comes to lead authors, not one of the top 100 papers was led by a scientist from Africa or South America. Of the seven papers led by Asian authors, five were from China.

"If the vast majority of research around climate change is coming from a group of people with a very similar background, for example, male scientists from the global north, then the body of knowledge that we're going to have around climate change is going to be skewed towards their interests, knowledge and scientific training," said Ayesha Tandon from Carbon Brief, who carried out the analysis and says that "systemic bias" is at play here.

"One study noted that a lot of our understanding of climate change is biased towards cooler climates, because it's mainly carried out by scientists who live in the global north in cold climates," she added.

There are a number of other factors at play that limit the opportunities for researchers from the global south. These include a lack of funding for expensive computers to run the computer models, or simulations, that are the bedrock of much climate research.

Other issues include a different academic culture where teaching is prioritised over research, as well as language barriers and a lack of access to expensive libraries and databases.

Most of the leading papers on climate change were published by institutions in the global north

Even where researchers from better-off countries seek to collaborate with colleagues in the developing world, the efforts don't always work out well.

One researcher originally from Tanzania but now working in Mexico explained what can happen.

"The northern scientist often brings his or her own grad students from the north, and they tend to view their local partners as facilitators - logistic, cultural, language, admin - rather than science collaborators," Dr Tuyeni Mwampamba from the Institute of Ecosystems and Sustainability Research in Mexico told Carbon Brief.

Researchers from the north are often seen as wanting to extract resources and data from developing nations without making any contribution to local research, a practice sometimes known as "helicopter science".

For women involved in research in the global south there are added challenges in getting your name on a scientific paper

A scientist at work in Cote D'Ivoire

"Women tend to have a much higher dropout rate than men as they progress through academia," said Ayesha Tandon.

"But then women also have to contend with stereotypes and sexism, and even just cultural norms in their country or from the upbringing that might prevent them from spending as much time on their science or from pursuing it in the way that men do."

The analysis suggests that the lack of voices from women and from the global south is hampering the global understanding of climate change.

Solving the problem is not going to be easy, according to the author.

"This is a systemic problem and it will progress and keep getting worse, because people in positions of power will continue to have those privileges," said Ayesha Tandon.

"It's a problem that will not just go away on its own unless people really work at it."
Cutting methane emissions most impactful way to limit climate change

New report confirms methane responsible for 30% of global temperature rise to date

Kevin O'Sullivan Environment & Science Editor
IRISH TIMES

Fossil fuel operations globally emitted close to 120 million tonnes of methane in 2020, nearly one-third of all methane emissions from human activity. Photograph: iStock

Governments and energy companies have major opportunities to reduce methane emissions, which provides the most impactful way to limit near-term climate change, according an International Energy Agency (IEA) report released on Thursday.

Methane is responsible for around 30 per cent of the global rise in temperatures to date, it confirms. Rapid steps to tackle methane emissions from oil, gas and coal operations would have immediate impacts because of the potent effect of methane on global warming and large scope for cost-effective actions, the report concludes.

It outlines pathways to curtailing methane emissions from fossil fuel operations with a view to a 75 per cent cut by 2030. The largest source of global methane emissions from human activities is agriculture, closely followed by the energy sector, which includes emissions from coal, oil, natural gas and biofuels. Agriculture accounts for a third of Ireland’s overall emissions; most of which are made up to methane.

Fossil fuel operations globally emitted close to 120 million tonnes of methane in 2020, nearly one-third of all methane emissions from human activity, the IEA says. Much of these emissions are simply leakage along the production and supply chain that operators fail to capture or avert.

There are cost-effective ways to limit these emissions, especially in the oil and gas sector. The IEA estimates that more than 70 per cent of current emissions from oil and gas operations are technically feasible to prevent and around 45 per cent could typically be avoided at no net cost because the value of the captured gas is higher than the cost of the abatement measure. This share would be much higher at the moment, given record highs in natural gas prices.

The report provides insights and guidance for governments, regulators and the energy industry in the lead-up to the COP26 global summit and beyond. It identifies and quantifies a range of measures, including policy and regulatory actions, voluntary industry initiatives, and improvements in emissions measurement and reporting.


Waste management to be overhauled as part of move to circular economy, committee told

‘Too many companies playing not to lose rather than to win’

“At a time when we are constantly being reminded of the damaging effects of climate change, it is inexcusable that massive amounts of methane continue to be allowed to just seep into the air from fossil fuel operations,’’ said IEA director Fatih Birol.

“These emissions are avoidable, the solutions are proven and even profitable in many cases. And the benefits in terms of avoided near-term warming are huge,” he added.

He welcomed renewed impetus behind this issue with the global methane pledge announced by the European Union and the United States, and urged all countries and companies to step up their actions.
Additional benefits

The EU and US have agreed to cut methane emission by 30 per cent by 2030 ranging across all sectors generating the greenhouse gas. Methane abatement delivers additional important benefits, including improved public health and agricultural productivity, they acknowledged after brokering the agreement last month.

Actions to be pursued include improved manure management and conversion of agricultural wastes into biofuels through the use of anaerobic digesters.

Quick action was needed because eventual declines in demand for fossil fuels alone would not achieve rapid enough reductions of methane emissions to forestall the worst effects of climate change, Mr Birol said.

Many countries have well-established policy tools, including leak detection and repair requirements, technology standards and a ban on non-emergency flaring and venting. Some have included methane alongside other greenhouse gases in their national net-zero emission pledges.

These governments could also leverage their buying power to incentivise other countries to step up their measures against these emissions, given that more than 40 per cent of the oil and gas produced in countries without strong methane commitments is exported for consumption in countries that do have such commitments, the IEA suggests.

Dr Joeri Rogelj, who is based at the Grantham Institute in Imperial College London, said: “Eliminating methane emissions from fossil fuel operations is a no-brainer. They can strongly limit the rate of global warming over the next decades and are in many cases saving money.”

The 75 per cent cut suggested by the IEA was well in line with pathways outlined by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to contain temperature rise to with 1.5 degrees.

“In those scenarios, methane emissions from the fossil fuel sector are reduced rapidly over the next decade. Cuts in agricultural methane emissions from rice, meat or dairy production are also important, but are harder to achieve,” he added.
CONSERVATIVE GOVTS CAN'T MANAGE
Provincial Emergency Operations Centre takes over Saskatchewan’s COVID-19 response

By David Giles Global News
Posted October 7, 2021 


WATCH: Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe announced on Thursday that the province is pivoting it's COVID-19 response strategy. He said the government is enhancing the provincial Emergency Operations Centre and it will become a unified command centre with the Ministry of Health and the Saskatchewan Health Association.

Saskatchewan’s Provincial Emergency Operations Centre (PEOC) will now lead the province’s emergency management response to the COVID-19 situation.

PEOC will be responsible for the coordination and deployment of provincial supports for activities across multiple sectors.

It will also handle ongoing inventory management of staffing across the health-care system.

READ MORE: Saskatchewan patients waiting for life-saving surgeries, clarity from health officials


Premier Scott Moe said this will provide a better response to the pandemic.

“This is being done to better coordinate the pandemic response between government ministries and staff, ensure the right resources are in the right place at the right time and provide administrative support so health care workers can focus their efforts on providing the best possible care to patients,” Moe said.

“Responsibility for public health recommendations and orders will continue to be managed by the chief medical health officer, Dr. Shahab.”

PEOC will also disseminate critical updates for the public and establish normalized briefings through media availability.


No new COVID-19 restrictions for Saskatchewan amid 4th wave: Moe

Saskatchewan Public Safety Agency president Marlo Pritchard said this structure has worked well during other provincial emergencies.

“The pressures in our healthcare system as a result of COVID-19 have demanded all the resources of the SHA, and now require the resources of the entire province through provincial command,” he said.

“Our health-care system has been working to support the people of Saskatchewan, and this will ensure that Saskatchewan is supporting our health-care system with every tool we have available.”

Pritchard, Saskatchewan Health Authority CEO Scott Livingstone, and deputy minister of health Max Hendricks will led the provincial command.

The province said it expects the provincial command to be operational throughout the duration of the provincial emergency that was declared on Sept. 13.


READ MORE: Saskatchewan government, opposition, health professionals issue guidance for holiday gatherings


Moe made the announcement as COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations continue to climb.

On Wednesday, Saskatchewan reported 356 people were in hospital due to COVID-19, 76 of whom are in intensive care. Both numbers are record highs for the province.

Officials said nearly 77 per cent of COVID-19 patients in hospital were not fully vaccinated.


Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has promised to provide any support necessary to help Saskatchewan with its COVID-19 crisis.

Trudeau and Moe spoke on Sept. 29 about cases in the province, increasing vaccination efforts and what the province needs to overcome the fourth wave of the pandemic.

There have been calls for the province to restrict gathering sizes.

On Tuesday, Saskatchewan NDP Leader Ryan Meili called for “a return to indoor gathering limits for both public and private events until cases and hospitalizations stabilize.”

The government rejected the call, saying it will not be making an order limiting gathering sizes.


A spokesperson added that the “vast majority of new cases and hospitalizations are unvaccinated residents and those who are not vaccinated should get vaccinated.”

The City of Saskatoon, the Saskatchewan Medical Association and the Saskatchewan Union of Nurses have also asked the province to restrict gathering sizes.


—with files from Connor O’Donovan




UPDATED
756 Alberta schools reporting cases of COVID-19, 54 declare outbreaks

Dr. Vipond: 'Zero protection' for kids in Alberta



CTV News Edmonton
Published Oct. 7, 2021 

EDMONTON -

Alberta's first list of schools reporting cases of COVID-19 since resuming the practice shows 54 have declared outbreaks of the virus, while more than 750 have reported at least two cases.

An outbreak is declared when 10 or more cases are reported within a 14-day period.

According to the list, there are 179 schools on alert with two to nine cases in the Edmonton Zone, and 10 more that have declared outbreaks.


Infographics: COVID-19 in Alberta by the numbers

The list also shows 199 Calgary Zone schools have reported between two and nine cases. Eleven Calgary Zone schools have declared outbreaks.

There are a total of 756 Alberta schools reporting at least two cases of COVID-19 on the province's list.

Released on Wednesday, the list was the province's first public disclosure of cases of COVID-19 in schools since announcing its newest plan to deal with the virus in schools on Tuesday.

Contact tracing returns to Alberta schools

Tuesday's announcement was a reversal of the province's decision announced in August, when its back-to-school plan included an end to reporting of COVID-19 cases unless there was a school-wide absence rate of 10 per cent or higher.

Alberta's back-to-school plan: COVID-19 vaccine clinics, masking not required by province

During Tuesday's announcement, the province also said next week school districts will start contact notification to parents if their child is exposed to COVID-19.

Health officials will conduct contact tracing for schools starting in November.

The province also announced it would give rapid tests to K-6 schools with outbreaks as children 12 and under can’t get vaccinated.

Rapid tests will be voluntary and administered by parents at home.

Alberta also recommended school divisions to implement a vaccine mandate for staff.

The shift in policy by the Alberta government came as the public school board in the provincial capital called on the province to implement a "firebreak" lockdown.
 (  Catholic schools in Alberta are considered Public schools as well)


More than 100 schools in the Edmonton Zone have COVID-19 cases

EDMONTON -

Nearly 200 Edmonton Zone schools have COVID-19 cases on the first day Alberta Health began to report infections in the classroom online.

There are 179 schools on alert with two to nine cases in the Edmonton Zone, and 10 schools with outbreaks — 10+ cases.


Four of the schools in the outbreak category are in Edmonton: Edmonton Islamic Academy, John Paul I Catholic School, Nellie Carlson School and Westglen School.

RELATED STORIES
Alberta reports 1,263 new COVID-19 cases, 26 deaths

On Tuesday, Alberta said it would resume reporting school cases, and next week school districts will start contact notification to parents if their child is exposed to COVID-19. Health officials will conduct contact tracing for schools starting in November.
Contact tracing returns to Alberta schools

The province also announced it would give rapid tests to K-6 schools with outbreaks as children 12 and under can’t get vaccinated.

Rapid tests will be voluntary and administered by parents at home.

Alberta also recommended school divisions to implement a vaccine mandate for staff.


  

SEE  
WAIT, WHAT 
UPDATED
Ottawa wanted U.S. whistleblower Chelsea Manning to come to Canada so she could be kicked out in person

The IRB adjudicator dismissed the government’s motion, saying the intent of Parliament was simply for people who aren't allowed to be in Canada to not be here

Author of the article:Adrian Humphreys
Publishing date:Oct 07, 2021 
PHOTO BY CLIFF OWEN/AP, FILE

The government of Canada asked U.S. whistleblower Chelsea Manning to travel to Canada so border agents would be able to physically kick her out of Canada.


The odd request was made by government lawyers last week in anticipation of an immigration hearing scheduled to begin Thursday for the former U.S. soldier who leaked thousands of U.S. documents that changed the public’s view of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The hearing on whether Manning is eligible to visit Canada is to be held by video conference.

Lawyers on behalf of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness asked the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) to postpone the hearing until Manning is in Canada for it, rather than participating over a video link from her home in the United States.

The government said that if she wasn’t physically in the country, Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) wouldn’t be able to remove her, if the government wins its case.

“The purpose of a removal order is to compel an individual who is found to be inadmissible to leave Canada. Should the (IRB) issue a removal order against an individual who does not attend their hearing from a location in Canada,” the government told the IRB in written argument, it would “be impractical for CBSA to enforce the order.”

Manning’s lawyers objected to the request.

MORE ON THIS TOPIC

Chelsea Manning challenging secrecy laws barring her from Canada


Chelsea Manning barred from Canada after conviction for leaking classified documents


In a decision Monday, IRB adjudicator Marisa Musto dismissed the government’s motion, saying the intent of Parliament was simply for people who aren’t allowed to be in Canada to not be here.

If Manning is found to be inadmissible after the hearing, the impact on Manning would be the same wherever in the world she was, Musto said.

“If she were physically in Canada when the order was made, the requirement would be that she leave Canada. Given that she is already outside Canada, a fact which is not in question, it can be said that the ‘objective’ of (immigration laws) … would, de facto, be fulfilled,” Musto said in her ruling.

“Admissibility proceedings not only have the effect of removing inadmissible persons from Canadian territory but also to preclude them from entering.”

Musto said there had already been plenty of admissibility hearings for people outside of Canada that the government did not object to.

“This inconsistency in the Minister’s position is confounding.”

Manning, a 33-year-old American citizen, was a military intelligence analyst deployed to Iraq in 2009 who became one of the best-known American whistleblowers after leaking a vast trove of documents through Wikileaks to major news organizations around the world.

The documents revealed undeclared civilian deaths, complicity in torture, significant human rights abuses and evidence contradicting the U.S. government’s public versions of its wartime actions.

Manning was arrested and convicted under the U.S. Espionage Act and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and sentenced to 35 years in prison, the longest sentence ever issued in the United States for leaking.

In 2017, after seven years in prison, Manning’s sentence was commuted by U.S. President Barack Obama.

Soon after her release, Manning tried to come to Canada but was stopped at the border. She was considered inadmissible by CBSA because she has been convicted of a serious criminal offence outside Canada.

A hearing on her admissibility is scheduled for two days, but a decision is not expected to be released immediately afterwards. Written submissions are expected from both Manning and the government following oral arguments.

On Sept. 17, Manning said she tested positive for COVID-19 despite being fully vaccinated.

“I will be quarantined for the remainder of the month — my symptoms are very mild thanks to being fully vaxxed in April,” she said on Twitter.

On Oct. 1, Manning tweeted: “off quarantine and feeling good.”

• Email: ahumphreys@postmedia.com | Twitter: AD_Humphreys

Chelsea Manning hearing: Lawyers object to video of U.S. soldiers killing civilians and laughing

Federal lawyers seeking to have the U.S. whistleblower declared inadmissible to Canada are objecting to the explosive video she released to WikiLeaks

Author of the article: Adrian Humphreys
Publishing date: Oct 07, 2021
Canada Border Services Agency is seeking to have U.S. whistleblower Chelsea Manning declared inadmissible to the country, which would prevent her from visiting and speaking at events in Canada. PHOTO BY SCREEN CAPTURE


Government of Canada lawyers seeking to have U.S. whistleblower Chelsea Manning declared inadmissible to Canada object to the explosive video she leaked — of the U.S. military shooting civilians in Iraq and laughing — being shown at her immigration hearing.

The lawyers for Manning, Joshua Blum and Lex Gill, said they plan on showing the video, which caused international outrage when it was publicly released by WikiLeaks in 2010, at Manning’s immigration hearing on Thursday.

MORE ON THIS TOPIC

U.S. whistleblower Chelsea Manning challenging secrecy laws barring her from Canada


Canada Border Services Agency is seeking to have Manning declared inadmissible to the country, preventing her from visiting and speaking at events in Canada, citing her serious criminal convictions in the U.S. over her massive leak of classified material.

The video, taken from onboard a U.S. military helicopter in Iraq in 2007, features 39 minutes of gunsight footage with soldiers killing 10 civilians, including two children and two Reuters journalists. Soldiers can be heard laughing at the incident.

The video contradicted official statements at the time of the killings that the helicopter was shot at before soldiers opened fire.

Government lawyers, Josée Barrette and Anthony Lashley, objected to the video being shown and entered as an exhibit, saying it was not relevant, was submitted late and was sent as a link to an online copy of the video rather than copied on to a CD.

IRB adjudicator Marisa Musto overruled the government’s objection.


The video, called “Collateral Murder” by WikiLeaks when it was released but referred to as “Collateral Damage” at the IRB hearing, is expected to be viewed when Manning testifies, scheduled for later Thursday.



Also expected to testify at the hearing is Heidi Matthews, an assistant professor of law at Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto. Called as a witness by Manning, Matthews is to testify on the international crimes revealed by Manning’s disclosures.

Manning’s expected testimony cannot be fully open because she is still bound by a non-disclosure agreement that she signed with the U.S. government, her lawyers warned at the start of the hearing.

That agreement prevents her from discussing the contents of the documents and files she leaked, under threat of prison time, but allows her to discuss what led up to her leaking the material and why she did it.

Manning, a 33-year-old American citizen, was an intelligence analyst deployed to Iraq who became one of the best-known American whistleblowers after leaking a vast trove of documents through WikiLeaks to major news organizations around the world.

The documents revealed undeclared civilian deaths, complicity in torture, significant human rights abuses and evidence contradicting the U.S. government’s public versions of its wartime actions.

Manning was arrested and convicted under the U.S. Espionage Act and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and sentenced to 35 years in prison, the longest sentence ever issued in the United States for leaking.

In 2017, after seven years in prison, Manning’s sentence was commuted by U.S. President Barack Obama.

Soon after her release, Manning tried to come to Canada but was stopped at the border. She was considered inadmissible by CBSA because she has been convicted of a serious criminal offence outside Canada.

She has been seeking to overturn that decision ever since.

Her immigration hearing continues Thursday and likely will spill over to Friday.

More on this story to come…

Controversial whistleblower Chelsea Manning fighting to be let into Canada

Canadian government is arguing she is inadmissible due to her prior convictions

Former army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning, seen in 2016, speaks with reporters, outside federal court in Alexandria, Va. The Canadian government is seeking to permanently ban her from entering, arguing that she should be denied entry because of the seriousness of her prior convictions on espionage charges. (The Associated Press)

Chelsea Manning, the former U.S. intelligence analyst who was convicted in one the largest breaches of classified information in American history, is fighting to be allowed into Canada.

The Canadian government is seeking to ban her from entering the country, arguing that she should be denied entry because of the serious criminality of her prior convictions on espionage charges in her home country.

Manning appeared virtually today in front of the Immigration and Refugee Board for an admissibility hearing. The administrative tribunal makes decisions about who can enter and stay in Canada.

"I really like Canada," she told the hearing today.

"I have many friends in Canada and obviously the pandemic has gotten in the way of a lot of this, but certainly in 2018 and 2019 I wanted to visit some friends in Canada, particularly in Montreal and Vancouver."

Her case dates back to September 2017, when border officers denied her entry at Quebec's St-Bernard-de-Lacolle border crossing. At the time, the government, citing her espionage charge, argued that if it had been committed in Canada "this offence would equate to an indictable offence, namely, treason."

Manning has been both praised as a whistleblower and condemned as a traitor for leaking hundreds of thousands of classified documents to WikiLeaks, the website founded by Julian Assange, in 2010 while serving in the U.S. military.

She said she wanted to expose what she saw as the U.S. military's disregard for how the Iraq War was affecting civilians, and that she did it "out of love" for her country.

In 2013, she was convicted of six counts of violating the Espionage Act — which forbids unauthorized people from sharing national defence information — and a handful of other charges, including stealing government property. She was acquitted of the most serious charge against her: aiding the enemy.

In one of his last acts as president, Barack Obama commuted Manning's sentence in 2017. She was released from military prison after serving seven years of a 35-year sentence.

Anthony Lashley, a government lawyer, said Ottawa is asking the tribunal to rule that she is not permitted to enter the country.

Lashley spent the morning questioning Manning on how she accessed, downloaded and shared documents.

He also questioned her on her previous plans to share information with various news organizations.

'Whistleblowing are acts of honesty': lawyer

Manning's lawyer Joshua Blum argued her American offences are not equivalent to Canadian offences, making her not inadmissible. 

He pointed to a provision in the Security of Information Act, Canada's national secrets act, which includes whistleblower protection in the "public interest."

A van with a 'Free Speech' placard and images of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning on its side sits outside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, Friday, April 5, 2019. (The Associated Press)

"We have a public interest defence for what Manning was convicted of," he said. "The U.S. doesn't."

Blum also argued Manning's actions were justified by "necessity" and that the public interest in disclosing that information outweighed the harm.

"The ongoing and unreported killings of Iraqi and Afghan civilians necessitated this act of whistleblowing," he said.

"We further add the acts of whistleblowing are acts of honesty, not fraudulence."

'Collateral murder' video shown 

When asked by her counsel why she shared the documents, Manning said "it always feels so self evident."

"I was just shocked at how little people knew about how bad the war in particular was," she said.

While being questioned by the adjudicator, Manning said she didn't share sensitive documents that would have revealed the sources of U.S. government intelligence. She is still bound by a non-disclosure agreement with the U.S. government and did not go into detail about what she leaked.

During the proceedings, Blum and co-counsel Lex Gill turned to Heidi Matthews, an assistant professor of law at Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto, to testify on international crimes.

As part of that questioning, they played a video titled "Collateral Murder" which made waves when it was first released on WikiLeaks more than a decade ago.

This image captured from a classified U.S. military video footage shows Iraqis being shot from an U.S. Apache helicopters that killed a dozen people in Baghdad, including two Reuters news staff, on July 12, 2007. The video was released to Reuters on April 5, 2010 by WikiLeaks. Reuters photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen, 22, and his assistant and driver Saeed Chmagh, 40, were killed in the incident. (Reuters/WikiLeaks/Handout)

The video shows a 2007 United States Army assault in Baghdad that left 12 people dead, including a Reuters photographer and driver. The video shows soldiers laughing and making jokes while taking part in the attack.

"Look at those dead bastards," one person can be overheard saying on the video. "Nice," another responds.

After an exchange of gunfire wounded two children, one soldier is heard saying on the video that "it's their fault for bringing their kids into a battle."

It was later revealed that Manning leaked the video.

Matthews argued the video contradicted official statements from the U.S. at the time of the killings, which said the helicopters had been called in to help American troops who had been attacked first.

Government lawyers said at the start of today's hearing that the video shouldn't be played, arguing it was not relevant, it was submitted too late and was sent as a link rather than a CD. They were overruled.

Ottawa wanted Manning to appear in person

Ahead of today's hearing, the government objected to Manning appearing via video conference because that would prevent officials from deporting her immediately if an order came down quickly.

"The minister submits that holding an admissibility hearing without the person concerned being physically present in Canada would preclude them from enforcing a removal order which may be issued at the end of the proceedings," says the text of an interlocutory decision that rejected the government's request.

The content of that decision was first reported by the National Post.

Last week, lawyers acting for the minister of Public Safety asked the Immigration and Refugee Board to delay the hearing until Manning could appear in person.

The board said no.

"If she were physically in Canada when the order was made, the requirement would be that she leave Canada," wrote adjudicator Marisa Musto.

"Given that she is already outside Canada, a fact which is not in question, it can be said that the 'objective' of [the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act] in regards to denying access to Canadian territory to persons who are inadmissible would, de facto, be fulfilled."

Manning described the four-year process to land a Canadian hearing as "exhausting."

"Plus, I also have to relive this era, going over stuff that happened a decade ago again," she said.

Manning was granted a visa to enter Canada to speak at an event back in 2018 — something she said she hopes to continue doing in this country — but it came with no formal resolution of her admissibility.

The hearing was adjourned until Friday.