Thursday, November 25, 2021

F35 BILLION DOLLAR BOONDOGGLE

Ottawa declines Boeing's bid to replace Canada's aging fighter jet fleet

U.S. defence giant Lockheed Martin and Swedish firm Saab

 still in contention for contract

The Canadian Press · 
The McDonnell Douglas CF-18 Hornet has been the Royal Canadian Air Force's primary fighter jet since 1983. (NORAD/Twitter)

Boeing has been told that its bid to replace Canada's aging CF-18s with a new fleet of the American company's Super Hornet fighter jets did not meet the federal government's requirements.

Three sources from industry and government say the message was delivered Wednesday as the other two companies competing for the $19 billion contract — U.S. defence giant Lockheed Martin and Swedish firm Saab — were told they met the government's requirements.

The three sources were all granted anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss these matters publicly.

The Department of National Defence and Public Services and Procurement Canada, which is managing the competition on behalf of the federal government, did not respond to requests for comment on Thursday.

Companies had been ordered to show their fighter jet was able to meet the military's requirements for missions at home and abroad, but also that winning the contract would result in substantial economic benefits to Canada.

But while Boeing's failure to meet the requirements would appear to disqualify the Super Hornet from the competition — leaving only Lockheed Martin's F-35 and Saab's Gripen fighter jet in the running — none of the companies have been told whether they are still in or out.

A Boeing spokesperson said the company would reserve comment pending official notification from the government.

News that one of the two U.S. companies competing for the contract failed to meet one or more of the requirements is the latest twist in what has already been a long and often unpredictable road toward replacing Canada's CF-18s.

Many observers had seen the Super Hornet and F-35 as the only real competition because of Canada's close relationship with the United States, which includes using fighter jets together to defend North American aerospace on a daily basis.

Those perceptions were only amplified after two other European companies dropped out of the competition before it even started, complaining that the government's requirements had stacked the deck in favour of their U.S. rivals.

Sweden is not a member of NATO or the joint Canadian-American defence command known as NORAD, which is responsible for protecting the continent from foreign threats. That had prompted questions about the Gripen's compatibility with U.S. aircraft.

Defence analyst David Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute said that while Boeing's failure to meet the government's requirements is surprising, it could also boost the government's assertion that it is running a fair and unbiased competition to replace the CF-18s.

"It indicates it was genuinely a competitive procurement, which Canada had put an awful lot of effort into ensuring was the case," he said.

"There was a lot of speculation about whether a non-American fighter could actually be a real contender, given Canada's requirements for interoperability with the United States. If they're still in the mix, Saab has obviously met that mark."

But Jeff Collins, an expert on military procurement at the University of Prince Edward Island, said there remain longstanding concerns in some corners that the entire competition has been set up from the beginning to select the F-35.

Choosing a different fighter, he added, would represent a major break from Canada's closest allies, the majority of which are buying the F-35.

Lockheed Martin F-35 seen as leading contender

Canada first joined the U.S. and other allies as a partner in developing the F-35 in 1997 and has since paid US$613 million to stay at the table. Partners get a discount when purchasing the jets and compete for billions of dollars in contracts associated with building and maintaining them.

Stephen Harper's Conservative government committed to buying 65 F-35s without a competition in 2010, before concerns about the stealth fighter's cost and capabilities forced it back to the drawing board.

The Liberals promised in 2015 not to buy the F-35, but to instead launch an open competition to replace the CF-18s. They later planned to buy 18 Super Hornets without a competition as an "interim" measure to ensure Canada had enough aircraft until permanent replacements could be purchased.

Some at the time questioned that plan, suggesting the Liberals were trying to find a way to lock Canada into the Super Hornet without opening itself up to a legal challenge from Lockheed Martin or any other jet makers.

U.S. Navy crewmembers launch a Super Hornet from the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier in the Arabian Sea. (U.S. Navy/Associated Press)

But the government cancelled the plan after Boeing launched a trade dispute with Montreal aerospace firm Bombardier over the latter's C-Series planes. It later introduced a penalty on firms seeking a federal contract which have launched trade disputes with Canada.

Collins questioned whether the so-called "Boeing clause" played any part in the fighter jet competition — though officials have said it was not a factor as the dispute was resolved in Bombardier's favour in 2018.

Meanwhile, the government has been forced to invest hundreds of millions of additional dollars into the CF-18 fleet to keep it flying until a replacement can be delivered. The government has said it plans to name a winner in the coming months, with the first plane set to be delivered in 2025.

The last plane isn't scheduled to arrive until 2032 — at which point the CF-18s will have been around for 50 years.



Posted by at No comments:

Why Did Nuclear Power Fail The First Time Around?

By Leonard Hyman & William Tilles - Nov 23, 2021
  • COP26 and other efforts to fight climate change have put nuclear power back in the spotlight for many governments and institutions 
  • Nuclear energy failed to gain a significant portion of the energy mix when it first broke onto the scene due to a failure in the industry to take a holistic approach 
  • This time around, it seems the industry is eager to deal with not only cost but also economic, social, and environmental issues

Now that the Glasgow conference and some mighty public relations work have put nuclear energy back in the spotlight, maybe it is worth examining why nuclear dismally failed to meet expectations, which might tell us why the nuclear advocates (some of them, anyway) are moving in new directions at long last, after clinging for decades to a model that did not work. First, let’s understand that most nuclear power plants work in the sense that they produce electricity, and they have been working far better than in the past. The problems, largely, lie in how nuclear fits into the picture economically and societally. The historian Thomas Hughes chose to define a technology not just as the machinery and software (technical) but as an entire system composed of technical, economic, safety, and other components all working toward a common goal. In this case, the engineers who decided to enlarge a nuclear submarine engine into something bigger, and those who jumped on the opportunity, missed a lot of the picture.

First, there was construction cost. The builders figured that putting up a nuke was like putting up a coal-fired plant, only bigger. They were wrong. A nuclear station was a giant project and, like other giant projects that had too many teams and bosses, was too big to finance easily, was oversized for the market, and had to be planned and started far before the time when the market for the output would be evident. Cost overruns were almost inevitable. To make matters worse, most builders decided to put up custom projects (the French did not) so they never gained the advantage of experience or savings from replication. What’s more, with a nuclear plant, you could not stop halfway along when you discovered you only needed half the output. It was all or nothing. This is why there is so much interest in smaller, factory-made, modular units, that repeat the design from place to place and that might go up relatively fast. That process reduces the risk and makes it easier to stop when necessary. 

Second, there is the issue of safety. One might make comparisons of all deaths and injuries attributable to nuclear operations and deaths and injuries in coal mines or oil rigs, and conclude that nuclear is safer. But nuclear accidents, while rare, can be spectacularly devastating, forcing evacuations of thousands of people and endangering the viability of the plant owner as well. The usual risk analysis concentrates on the likelihood of the event, not how bad an extremely unlikely event could be. The public looks at the worst case. As a result, a significant portion of the public is wary of nuclear. The government has to insure against disaster.

Related: OPEC+ Vows To Respond If Countries Tap Their Oil Reserves

And, third, there is the problem of nuclear waste. Whether the waste is sitting above ground in “temporary” storage, or below in rock vaults, the public worries about terror attacks above ground or leaks into underground water supplies. Again, likelihood matters little. The people of Las Vegas did not want a nuclear waste storage facility nearby. The facility is still there, but not operating. Some of the newer nuclear plant designs either do not solve the storage issue or substitute another problem, a byproduct that could be diverted to weapons. We expect the new nuke builders to ignore or fudge the waste issue because they have no control over it. But they will deal with local opposition to nuclear by putting facilities on existing sites. The locals know the issues, have accepted the risks in return for good jobs and high tax payments. Existing nuclear plant sites are extraordinarily valuable, then.

Finally, the builders did not realize that nuclear power, with all the risks attached and the vast scale of the projects, was not appropriate for commercial entities. It was a government project from beginning to end. Commercial entities might run the plants, build them under contract, sell the output, but they could not afford to undertake nuclear risk. We expect that governments will take a more active role, this time around, rather than wait to bail out the builders afterward. We would be surprised if these confident purveyors of the new nuclear act without some sort of government aid. That is another lesson. 

In short, boosters for a new nuclear age plan substantial improvements over the old nuclear age but still have not shown how to make society more welcoming of nuclear or how to make nuclear self-sufficient. Then again, in light of the climate emergency, maybe we should just welcome any improvement in nuclear and go for it.

By Leonard Hyman and William Tilles for Oilprice.com

Posted by at No comments:

Hydrogen as a future energy source in Western Canada

 

The level of industrial interest in hydrogen as a future energy source has grown dramatically.  Pathways for generating, and utilizing hydrogen are being investigated by many operating companies as solutions toward satisfying decarbonization ambitions, and longer-term net-zero goals.

During the past year, Fluor Canada and GoobieTulk Inc. (GTI) have performed an in-depth review of hydrogen as a future energy source in Western Canada.  The business case success criteria for using hydrogen as a future energy source was centered around five key attributes.  These were 1) a meaningful reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, 2) the potential for immediate technology implementation, 3) the use of proven world-scale hydrogen production plants, 4) an acceptable cash-cost of hydrogen production and 5) standalone competitiveness as a source of alternative energy.

The review involved comparing different hydrogen manufacturing technologies – steam-methane reforming, autothermal reforming and electrolyzer-produced hydrogen as alternative pathways to hydrogen production.  Autothermal reforming presented the most compelling arguments; economy-of-scale production rate, de-risked technology, lowest cash-cost of operation and highest carbon capture rate, to name a few.

Additionally, the review encompassed potential Alberta hydrogen markets, such as using hydrogen as a transportation fuel, as an alternative to natural gas, replacing current “grey” hydrogen with “blue” hydrogen, the blending of hydrogen into West-coast LNG supply (i.e., natural gas) pipelines and considerations around using hydrogen for West-coast ammonia and methanol production.

Several conclusions are outlined in the report, however, one compelling conclusion stood out.  A business case exists to continue with the development of an Alberta-based project – to use hydrogen as a future energy source in Alberta, having potential to replace traditional transportation fuels.  The compelling storyline satisfies the business case success criteria on several fronts, these being, 1) the ability to capture 96% of the CO2, 2) the potential for immediate technology implementation, 3) proven, de-risked world-scale hydrogen production, 4) the lowest quantity of natural gas required per gigajoule (GJ) of hydrogen produced, and 5) practically the lowest-cost hydrogen production location in the world.

The headwinds to this pathway relate to the nascent hydrogen transportation fuel market in Western Canada.  Relative to the scale of demand for conventional transportation fuels, demand for hydrogen as a transportation fuel does not currently exist.  A catalyst is required to enable this market to evolve in Western Canada.

As noted in the recently released Alberta Hydrogen Roadmap, Alberta has the potential to be a supplier-of-choice for clean hydrogen as a transportation fuel once zero-emission vehicles are more widely adopted.

David Mercer
Director, Head of Technology – Energy Solutions, Fluor Canada

Posted by at No comments:

MORE  MYTHOLOGY

COP26: Architectural firm envisions skyscrapers that capture CO2

COP26: Architectural firm envisions skyscrapers that capture CO2
Credit: © SOM | Miysis

Architectural firm Skidmore, Owings & Merrill gave a presentation last week at COP26 suggesting that skyscrapers of the future could remove more carbon dioxide out of the air than they emit. They have come up with a design for such a skyscraper called the Urban Sequoia in homage to the famous redwood trees.

In their , representatives for SOM noted that  are the primary emitters of , accounting for approximately a third of all greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere. And the problem is only going to grow worse as the population of the world grows. They suggest that one way to reduce emissions is to change the way large buildings are designed—instead of being huge emitters, they claim, the buildings could actually be huge collectors.

The team at SOM envisions skyscrapers incorporating technology that either sequesters  pulled from the air or stores it for sale to manufacturers. They see buildings made of materials that absorb carbon, serving as a carbon sink over the course of their lifetimes. They also see buildings with areas dedicated to growing plants and algae—both of which could be used to capture carbon and to provide fuel for the building. And they also suggest that the building itself could be designed in a way that captures carbon from the air using what they describe as a "stack effect." In such a , air would be drawn into a central part of the building, where carbon-extraction devices could be put to work 24 hours a day. They suggest such a building would have a lifetime of approximately 60 years during which it would absorb up to four times as much carbon as was released.

COP26: Architectural firm envisions skyscrapers that capture CO2
Credit: © SOM

The  at SOM point out that carbon extracted from a building could be used to create road paving materials, pipes or other parts of urban structures. And they suggest that if all new buildings were made to collect more carbon than they emit, urban greenhouse gas emissions could be greatly reduced—perhaps by as much as 1.6 billion tons a year.Cities and climate change: Why low-rise buildings are the future, not skyscrapers

More information: www.som.com/news/at-cop26-som- … or-absorbing-carbon/

© 2021 Science X Network

How space-based solar power can save the planet | FT


Nov 23, 2021
Financial Times

Space launch costs are dropping rapidly. Solar panels are cheaper than ever. Could space-based solar power soon be price-competitive with nuclear? Promoted as a zero-carbon solution, classified military space planes have also been conducting experiments into wireless power transmission. The FT's Peggy Hollinger looks at whether space-based solar power can move beyond science fiction.


Posted by at No comments:

 

Opinion: Hydrogen for ground transportation and heating is a bad idea

by An­thony Patt, ETH Zurich

hydrogen
Credit: Pixabay/CC0 Public Domain

Ambitions to make hydrogen a key energy carrier for a climate friendly future are misguided, says Anthony Patt. Wherever possible, including ground transportation and heating, we should replace fossil fuels with the direct use of renewable electricity.

To save the climate, the world needs to stop using  by mid-century. We are finally headed in the right direction. Nearly all new power-sector investment is going into . Battery electric vehicles (BEVs) are becoming popular. Most new buildings are being built with non-fossil heating systems. The pace of change needs to accelerate, and stronger climate policies are required. Yet one of the most serious threats to all of this is masquerading as clean 's friend: .

The wrong carrier of hope

Hydrogen is an energy carrier, like electricity, not an energy source. We can produce it three ways. Gray hydrogen, currently accounting for nearly all hydrogen used, is obtained from methane, in a process that generates substantial CO2 and fugitive methane emissions. Blue hydrogen is like gray, but with carbon capture and storage to reduce CO2 emissions. Unfortunately, fugitive methane emissions and process inefficiencies lead even blue hydrogen to have higher greenhouse gas emissions than whatever oil and natural gas it might replace.

Green hydrogen is made from water, using renewable electricity for electrolysis. It generates no direct emissions and is the only climate friendly option. The problem with green hydrogen is that, in most cases, using renewable energy directly would be more efficient, less expensive, and demand fewer natural resources and new infrastructure. From a systems perspective these issues are crucial.

Competitive and reasonable

Consider ground transport. Current BEVs are cost-competitive with gasoline and diesel cars and have a rapidly growing market share. They offer sufficient range to satisfy 99% of all trips, and for the other 1%, high speed chargers provide over 400 km of range in less than 30 minutes, equivalent to breaks people need anyway. Recent work shows that battery electric trucks, which so-far have lagged behind cars, function equally well in terms of both economics and range, even for long distances. There have been concerns about the environmental impacts of battery production; these can and are being addressed through circular economy solutions.

The core infrastructure for charging BEVs—the electricity grid—already exists. As the number of BEVs on the road rises, we will need to augment both renewable power supply and the distribution grid. But importantly, the diffusion of BEVs and needed infrastructure upgrades can happen simultaneously.

The story is similar for heat pumps, which are the most efficient way of using renewable power to heat buildings and many industrial processes. They are cost-competitive with fossil heating systems now, and infrastructure improvements can occur simultaneously with their expanding market share.

Inefficient, expensive, and slow

So what about hydrogen? Hydrogen fuel-cell electric vehicles' (FCEVs) primary advantage is that they refuel faster than BEVs can charge. This no longer matters much, as BEV range and charging speeds have increased. Their first disadvantage is that FCEVs' overall efficiency—electricity, to green hydrogen, back to electricity, to wheel—is half to a third that of BEVs. Higher energy use makes them significantly more expensive, compared to both BEVs and gasoline or diesel. And we would need an extensive new infrastructure for hydrogen distribution and fuelling, which unlike that for BEVs would need to be in place before FCEVs are suitable for any mass market at all.

In the case of heating, there are so-called "hydrogen-ready" boilers coming to market that can burn a mixture of natural gas and hydrogen. Pure hydrogen boilers, which is what we ultimately would need, don't yet exist. Boilers offer some short-term advantages over , in terms of less need to renovate some older buildings. But then there are the same disadvantages as with FCEVs. Efficiency: it would take about six times more renewable electricity to produce the needed green hydrogen, compared to using a heat pump to heat the same building. Costs: these are higher, because of the greater energy use. Infrastructure: a second parallel hydrogen delivery system would be required before pure hydrogen boilers—which is what we really need by 2050—can begin to enter the market.

Just as important, scaling up renewable electricity supply fast enough is probably going to be the main bottleneck in the transition away from fossil fuels. In Switzerland, for example, we currently install solar photovoltaic (PV) capacity faster than ever, and yet we will need to quickly ramp-up installation rates by an additional factor of four in order to fully electrify ground transportation and partially electrify heating by 2050. If green hydrogen becomes prevalent, the ramp-up will have to be even faster, and the challenges much greater.

The hydrogen hype

Despite these problems, there is a huge amount of political enthusiasm for hydrogen. To be clear: there are some applications where hydrogen will help us decarbonize, notably seasonal energy storage, steel production, and as an intermediate step in producing sustainable aviation fuels (see ETH News). But policies being discussed extend far beyond these.

The EU's Hydrogen Strategy, for example, envisions making hydrogen a key energy carrier for ground transport and heating, and would dedicate billions of Euros in public funding towards R&D and infrastructure planning. The Swiss government has no such plans vis-à-vis heating, but cantonal governments have signaled that they see expanding infrastructure for BEVs and FCEVs as having equal priority. It just doesn't make sense.

So why the hype?

The hype appears to come from corporate lobbying in the policy process. The European hydrogen lobby spends over €50 million annually, outperforming environmental NGOs by a factor of five in terms of meeting and providing pre-packaged strategies to overworked policy-makers.

And that does make sense, because the transition to renewable energy threatens to make their entire industry obsolete. Prioritizing hydrogen will slow it all down, prolonging the use of existing assets. If hydrogen demand expands faster than the supply of renewable energy to manufacture green hydrogen, we will be forced to continue using gray or blue hydrogen, which rely on natural gas. Finally, the fossil energy industry's primary skill set lies in processing, storing, and delivering fuel to customers through pipelines and points of sale.

Sounding the alarm

I am not the only one who is worried. One of the leading global energy sector and cleantech analysts, Daniel Liebreich, has suggested that the oil sector is lobbying for hydrogen "because it wants to delay electrification." A group of prominent British scientists have written to their government expressing concern about hydrogen development.

In a few limited applications, green hydrogen may help us decarbonize. But for ground transport and heating, which together account for the majority of energy consumption, hydrogen is a really bad idea. It's the fossil energy industry's last best chance for survival, and they are playing the political game accordingly.

If they win, it will delay the transition to clean energy. Generate higher emissions in the meantime. Require more land and resource for energy production. And cost more. Environment and society will lose.

'Serious threat' of fugitive emissions with hydrogen plan
More information: Marc A. Melliger et al, Anxiety vs reality – Sufficiency of battery electric vehicle range in Switzerland and Finland, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment (2018). DOI: 10.1016/j.trd.2018.08.011

Björn Nykvist et al, The feasibility of heavy battery electric trucks, Joule (2021). DOI: 10.1016/J.JOULE.2021.03.007 Joris Baars et al, Circular economy strategies for electric vehicle batteries reduce reliance on raw materials, Nature Sustainability (2020). DOI: 10.1038/s41893-020-00607-0

Robert W. Howarth et al, How green is blue hydrogen?, Energy Science & Engineering (2021). DOI: 10.1002/ese3.956

Journal information: Nature Sustainability , Joule 
Provided by ETH Zurich 
Posted by at No comments:
OF COURSE IT DID ITS UCP
Alberta website with updated QR code 'unavailable' most of launch day
 
Alberta's QR code is being updated for travel requirements.

CTV News Edmonton
Updated Nov. 24, 2021 8:30 p.m. MST

EDMONTON -

Alberta’s updated COVID-19 QR code, which is supposed to meet the Canadian standard for domestic and international travel, was largely unavailable the first day residents were able to download it.

The province said on Tuesday the QR code would be updated on Wednesday, but users reported issues with the Alberta Covid Records website.

As of Wednesday night, the website had been updated to include a message stating the new vaccine record will be unavailable while the issues were worked out.


The province's website states the updated QR code is unavailable.

Earlier Wednesday, Alberta Health told CTV News the website would be updated “ASAP,” but the province later tweeted it was still unavailable.



Albertans were still able to access the previous version of the QR code.

The new record includes middle names and is written in both official languages.
Here's how Albertans can get their COVID-19 vaccine QR code

The Alberta government says the original code will still be accepted for the Restrictions Exemption Program, if there are Albertans who do not plan to travel. Alberta’s QR code scanning app is supposed to recognize both the current and updated code.

The province also says the app can scan codes issued by other provinces and territories, as well as Canadian Armed Forces records.

For international travelers who were vaccinated outside Canada, out-of-country vaccine records can be used along with ID such as a passport.

Posted by at No comments:
New Brunswick

No single source for 9 Moncton legionnaires' disease cases

Public Health found several smaller 'clusters' of cases in outbreak that was declared over in October

Shane Magee · CBC News · 
Dr. Yves Léger, a regional medical officer of health, declared a legionnaires' disease outbreak in the Moncton region Aug. 6 when six people were sick. (Shane Magee/CBC)

Public Health says testing determined there was no single source for nine legionnaires' disease cases in the Moncton region this year as it announced the end of its investigation.

In the first update in more than two months, Dr. Yves Léger, regional medical officer of health, laid out a complex explanation of the cases.

"I think we can clearly say that we were not definitely dealing with one outbreak per se, which usually means an increase in cases that are linked to one common source," Léger told reporters Wednesday in a news conference. "In fact, there were a few distinct clusters or grouping of cases."

Léger said there are three separate groups within those nine cases based on laboratory testing, but he left open the possibility none within those three groups are linked to common sources.

The outbreak investigation was declared over in late October, though this wasn't disclosed until Wednesday. The total number of cases is one higher than what had been previously made public in mid-September.

Léger had declared an outbreak Aug. 6 when Public Health was aware of six people ill with legionnaires' disease, a severe form of pneumonia that's fatal in about 10 to 15 per cent of cases. Seven of the nine were hospitalized, one person died.

Legionnaires' disease is caused by inhaling legionella bacteria, which is found in many natural waterways. It's also found in man-made systems like decorative fountains, spas and cooling towers. 

Léger told reporters he declared an outbreak because it was unusual to see so many cases reported in such a short period, raising suspicions they were dealing with an outbreak similar to one traced to cooling towers in Moncton in 2019 that infected 16 people. 

Cooling towers have often been determined to be the source of outbreaks. The mechanical equipment is part of a centralized air-cooling system for a variety of types of buildings. Bacteria can grow and spread into the community on mist carried from the towers by the wind. The illness doesn't spread person-to-person.

Cooling towers on an industrial building in Moncton. (Pierre Fournier/CBC)

However, Léger said a series of subsequent laboratory tests of samples from patients and from cooling towers in the region led Public Health to determine the cases weren't all linked to one source as they were in 2019.

Instead, he said they may be what's known as sporadic cases that occur but aren't part of an outbreak. In some of those cases, a specific source can't be found. An average of five cases were reported per year across New Brunswick, according to a 2018 report.

The first of the nine cases was reported to Public Health on July 26, while the last case was reported Sept. 15. The people infected ranged from their mid-20s to early 90s. 

Public Health tested at 69 cooling towers at 42 locations in the Moncton region.

Four had elevated bacteria levels and were cleaned and later tested, but none had high enough bacteria levels to require an immediate shutdown. He didn't name the four locations with towers that had elevated bacteria levels.

I certainly don't have any reason to believe that there's any ongoing risk in the community from cooling towers. - Dr. Yves Léger

Léger said lab testing showed a mix of different strains of legionella bacteria in those cooling towers. 

Testing linked one patient's infection to bacteria found in cooling towers, but that same strain was found in two separate cooling towers located three kilometres apart, making it hard to determine how the person was infected. 

Léger, asked whether there's a risk to people in Moncton given no single source was determined, said the bacteria is present everywhere in the environment. 

He said people can reduce their risk by making sure hot-water systems such as hot tubs are properly maintained. 

"In terms of looking at the outcome of our investigation here in our nine cases, I certainly don't have any reason to believe that there's any ongoing risk in the community from cooling towers," he said, noting they tested every cooling tower they are aware of in the region. 

He reiterated that recommendations he issued following the 2019 outbreak for a cooling tower registry and associated maintenance rules are still important to implement. 

Dorothy Shephard, the province's health minister, told CBC in September she expects legislation to implement those recommendations will be introduced next year.

    CBC's Journalistic Standards and Practices|About CBC News
    Posted by at No comments:
    Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)