It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Monday, December 20, 2021
SHA closes meat processor and warehouse in Saskatoon over rodent contamination
The Afro-Caribbean Meat Processor and Afro-Caribbean Warehouse located at 325 - 20th St. West in Saskatoon, Sask. has been ordered closed by the SHA. (Google Maps)
A Saskatoon meat processor and warehouse has been closed after officials found the majority of the facility's food had been "significantly contaminated" by rodents.
In a news release, the Saskatchewan Health Authority (SHA) said the Afro-Caribbean Meat Processor and Afro-Caribbean Warehouse has had all of its food seized.
The facility, located at 325 - 20th St. West in Saskatoon, was visited by public health inspectors on Dec. 15, Dec. 16, and Dec. 17.
The inspectors found that the majority of the food at the location had been significantly contaminated.
Afro-Caribbean Meat Processor and Afro-Caribbean Warehouse offered food for direct sale to the public and provided food products to other establishments in the province.
All food at Afro-Caribbean Meat Processor and Afro-Caribbean Warehouse was secured within the facility.
The SHA said anyone or any business that has purchased products from the facility or its warehouse should immediately discard any products that are in permeable packaging.
All food products in intact, impermeable packaging should be thoroughly cleaned and sanitized with soap and water or a solution of 15 ml bleach to one litre of water.
The sanitization should be completed before the packaging is opened or the contents are consumed, the SHA said.
What Canadian health officials know so far about the Omicron variant of COVID-19
Omicron: What we know
The Canadian Press - Dec 17, 2021 / 12:27 pm | Story: 354912
Photo: pixabay
Public health officials warn the Omicron variant could propel an enormous spike in COVID-19 cases over the next few months. But there's still a lot scientists need to learn about the latest mutation. Here's what Canadian public health officials know about the variant so far:
Prevalence
— Almost 350 confirmed cases have been reported in 11 provinces and territories. Increasing numbers of cases are not linked to travel, pointing to community transmission in several parts of the country with outbreaks in multiple settings.
— The World Health Organization said Omicron has been reported in 77 countries worldwide but is likely already in most countries, even if not yet detected.
Transmissibility
— Omicron has potential to spread more quickly than Delta, which was already highly transmissible.
— Canada's chief public health officer Dr. Theresa Tam says aerosol transmission is a main route of spread, and said to "think of it like smoke in the room: those closest to the source will inhale more." As a result, masking and ventilation are "very important."
— It's suspected that the incubation period for the Omicron variant may be a little bit shorter than for the other variants, but Tam says that is still under investigation.
Severity
— It's not currently known whether Omicron carries a higher or lower risk of severe illness or death.
— Some of the current COVID-19 treatments may be less effective against Omicron than against other variants.
— Larger numbers of cases could impact health-care capacity. If it's assumed Omicron is three times more transmissible than Delta and becomes the dominant strain, the federal modelling has suggested the number of daily cases in Canada could explode to 26,600 by mid-January from about 3,300 currently.
Immunity
— Being fully vaccinated and then getting a booster shot is expected to reasonably protect against infection and likely offers strong protection against severe illness. However, experts say that must be combined with layers of public health measures and individual precautions.
— Omicron cases have been detected in both vaccinated and unvaccinated people, as well as in previously infected people.
Source: Public Health Agency of Canada
What masks work best against Omicron? Experts are divided, but most say ditch cloth masks
Canadians are being urged to ditch certain types of masks in favour of ones experts say will provide more protection against the new, rapidly spreading Omicron variant.
The head of Ontario’s Science Advisory Table, Dr. Peter Juni, said Friday that single-layer cloth face masks may not be enough to protect against Omicron.
“The issue here is if you have a single-layer, the ability to filtrate is absolutely minimal and doesn’t make a difference whatsoever,” said Juni, who pointed to the use of KN95 respirators as a more effective option.
The renewed discussion about mask use comes as Canada’s Omicron-driven fifth wave continues to drive daily case counts to record numbers not seen in months, pushing provinces to enact a slew of public health measures and restrictions.
Juni’s recommendation to ditch single-layer cloth face masks comes amid a call by some public health experts to re-examine masking guidelines, and more actively encourage the use of respirators and medical masks over cloth ones.
Colin Furness, an epidemiologist at the University of Toronto, said public health authorities need to more strongly encourage the use of KN95 respirators in indoor public settings.
Furness told the Canadian Press any campaign to push for their use should include resources to help Canadians find respirators that fit best.
“That’s public education we desperately need,” said Furness. “The fact that people are on their own for this is a travesty.”
2:10 Single-cloth masks not effective against Omicron, head of Ontario science table says
In November, the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) updated its guidelines on mask use, suggesting respirators such as the KN95 are more effective than non-medical masks.
“In general, while non-medical masks can help prevent the spread of COVID-19, medical masks and respirators provide better protection,” said PHAC on their mask information webpage.
The agency also recommended the use of medical masks or respirators for those in vulnerable at-risk groups, or who run a higher risk of contracting COVID-19 within their work or living situation.
In a press conference Friday, Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer Dr. Theresa Tam also stressed Canadians to follow PHAC’s updated guidance on indoor ventilation and “proper use, construction and fit of face masks.”
While respirators seem to be the consensus among public health experts and officials as the gold standard for protection against Omicron, they are quick to point out the added protection offered by respirators is very much dependent on the masks being properly fitted to a person’s face.
It’s a detail that Dr. Gerald Evans, chair of infectious diseases at Queen’s University, was quick to point out.
“The amount of extra protection you get from an N95 respirator … if it’s not fit-tested, is only marginally better than a medical mask,” said Evans.
While there is an upside to the protection offered by respirators if they are properly fitted, Evans also pointed out the high cost to regularly acquire them, as well as a lack of definitive evidence that N95s prevent transmission in community settings, more so than more cheaply produced medical masks
“So there’s no study that shows wearing an N95 statistically or clinically reduces the transmission of COVID 19 — more than a medical mask,” said Evans. “In fact, we have pretty good evidence, medical masks clearly work by reducing the overall infectious dose.”
1:17 COVID-19: WHO warns of dismissing the Omicron variant as being ‘mild’, calls for stronger measures
In differing guidance towards what looks to be general public use of masks, PHAC said a “respirator worn in the community doesn’t need to have been formally fit-tested as is required in some occupational settings.”
Evans also said the increased transmission of Omicron is not because it’s “more airborne” — a virus’ trait from which a respirator could further protect users. Rather, he said, people with the variant begin shedding higher loads of the virus, due to it replicating rapidly in the cells it infects.
The bottom line from Evans though is: “If you have a lot of money and you can afford an N95 mask or one of those equivalents, go ahead and buy them.” \ “But if you can, get a medical mask — they’re not very expensive … and if you can’t afford that, but you’ve got some good cloth masks, use them, don’t forget to clean them and probably think about double-masking if you think that’s appropriate.”
— With files from The Canadian Press
More protective masking, including N95s, needed to curb Omicron, say experts
TORONTO -- When Linsey Marr boarded a bus in Lake Louise, Alta., earlier this week, she was floored to find out that she had to take off her N95 respirator and put on a medical mask for the ride.
The Virginia Tech engineering professor, who studies viruses in the air, said the policy defies scientific reason, because respirators offer far more protection than a medical mask, both to the wearer and others around them.
"It would be like asking someone to take off their seatbelt, and to use this piece of rope to tie themselves to the seat instead," Marr said by phone.
A number of Canadians responded to her tweet about the incident saying they'd run into similar resistance while wearing respirators at hospitals and other health-care settings.
Experts say policies prohibiting N95 use are a step in the wrong direction when more protective masking is crucial to curbing the spread of the Omicron variant of COVID-19.
"It's even more critical now to protect yourself and others that we wear high-performance masks, which means they filter out particles well, and they fit well," said Marr, noting that while N95s are an effective option, she doesn't think they should be mandated in all situations.
Both medical masks and respirators are made out of materials that can filter out particles of all sizes, said Marr. The main difference comes down to fit -- respirators are designed to form a seal around the face, while medical masks often leave gaps under the cheeks or chin that allow very small particles to seep through.
These leaks lead to significantly less protection against the novel coronavirus, she said. A well-fitted respirator offers more than 95 per cent protection, she said. For medical masks, effectiveness ranges from 20 per cent to 90 per cent depending on how snug it is.
If hospitals or other facilities want to standardize what masks people wear because of concerns about quality control and counterfeits, Marr offered a simple solution: either let people wear a medical mask over their respirators, or offer everyone a N95.
On Friday, Ontario's chief medical officer of health issued an interim guidance requiring that all medical workers wear N95s when providing direct care to possible or confirmed COVID-19 patients.
Under the previous directive, health workers were allowed to wear medical masks unless it was determined that there was an elevated risk of infection, such as during procedures that generate small airborne viral particles.
The move was in line with Public Health Ontario's revised recommendations on personal protective equipment for health workers, which recognize N95s as an acceptable alternative to medical masks under certain circumstances, including for people visiting patient rooms and long-term care homes.
The agency said in an email that evidence published before the emergence of Omicron did not support the use of N95s over medical masks to protect health workers against COVID-19. But until more is known about the new variant, "it is prudent to enhance all layers of protection," the agency said.
The Public Health Agency of Canada also updated its mask recommendations in November amid growing consensus that small airborne particles play a significant role in spreading the novel coronavirus, in a departure from previous messaging pointing to larger respiratory droplets as the main mode of transmission.
The guidelines endorse the use of respirators among the general public, noting that they may provide a better fit than medical or non-medical masks.
Colin Furness, a University of Toronto infection control epidemiologist, said health authorities need to go further to encourage the use of N95 respirators across indoor public settings.
This campaign should include efforts to help Canadians identify the type of respirator that best fits their face, he said, likening the process to trying on the right pair of jeans.
"That's public education we desperately need," he said. "The fact that people are on their own for this is a travesty."
Mask messaging needs to reflect our evolving understanding of the novel coronavirus, said Furness.
Medical masks are effective at trapping droplets before they spread to others, he said. But as the Omicron variant has underscored the threat of airborne transmission, Furness said the emphasis needs to be on promoting respirators as a means of self-protection.
"You need to wear a mask defensively," he said. "N95s are the tool for the job."
PUBLIC HEALTH
Why We Need to Upgrade Our Face Masks—and Where to Get Them
High-quality respirators such as N95s and KN95s are now widely available and provide the best protection against COVID, according to experts. Why aren’t more people wearing them?
A wealth of evidence has shown that wearing a face mask helps prevent people from spreading the virus that causes COVID, SARS-CoV-2, to others and from becoming sick themselves. But there has been less guidance from public health officials on what kind of masks provide the best protection.
Early on in the pandemic, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization told the public not to wear N95 respirators, a type of mask that is made from high-tech synthetic fibers and provides a high level of protection against virus-laden airborne particles called aerosols. That was because there was then a shortage of such masks—and health care workers desperately needed them. At the same time, both agencies said there was little risk of aerosol transmission of SARS-CoV-2. They recommended cloth masks or other homemade face coverings that can stop some relatively large virus-carrying droplets even as it became clear that SARS-CoV-2 commonly spreads through aerosols—and as the supply of better-quality masks increased.
There is now a cornucopia of high-filtration respirator-style masks on the market, including N95s, Chinese-made KN95s and South Korean–made KF94s. They have been widely available and relatively affordable for months and provide better protection than cloth or surgical masks. Yet it was not until September 10 that the CDC finally updated its guidance to say the general public could wear N95s and other medical-grade masks now that they are in sufficient supply.
Still, however, the “CDC continues to recommend that N95 respirators should be prioritized for protection against COVID-19 in healthcare settings,” wrote CDC spokesperson Jade Fulce in an e-mail to Scientific American last week. “Essential workers and workers who routinely wore respirators before the pandemic should continue wearing N95 respirators,” she continued. “As N95s become more available they can be worn in non-healthcare settings, however, cloth masks are an acceptable and recommended option for masking.”
The agency announced in May that supplies of approved respirator masks had “increased significantly.” When asked why it only updated it guidance on N95 use by the public in September, Fulce replied that the “CDC regularly reviews and updates its guidance as more information becomes available.”
Scientific American spoke with several experts on aerosol transmission—some of whom have tested various masks available on the market—and they agree that health authorities should strongly recommend people wear well-fitted, high-filtration masks.
“A year ago we could say that we were concerned about shortages for health care workers, so we were telling people to make your cloth mask, and any mask is better than no mask,” says Linsey Marr, an environmental engineer and aerosol science expert at Virginia Tech. But given what scientists know now—especially with the virus’s highly transmissible Delta variant spreading and people spending more time indoors in schools, for example—“I think the CDC should be recommending high-performance masks for everyone when they’re in these risky indoor situations,” she says.
WHAT MAKES A GOOD MASK?
When it comes to mask effectiveness, the most important parameters are filtration, fit and comfort. Filtration generally refers to the percentage of particles the mask material blocks. For example, an N95 filters at least 95 percent of airborne particles. But that does little good if gaps around the mask let air in freely. A well-fitted mask should sit snugly against the face and over the chin, with no gaps around the nose or mouth. Comfort is also an extremely important metric: a mask does no good if people simply find it intolerable to wear.
A good mask is “the most important defense we have” against COVID, says aerosol expert Kimberly Prather, an atmospheric chemist at the University of California, San Diego.
There are a number of national standards for respirator quality. The U.S. gold standard, N95s, are certified by the CDC’s National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). And the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sets standards for how they have to fit people in work settings (such as in hospitals). But there is no official standard for N95 use by the general public. The European equivalent of the N95 is the FFP2 respirator, which filters at least 94 percent of particles. China has the KN95, and South Korea has the KF94. All provide excellent filtration, so it really comes down to which fits an individual best and is most comfortable.
WHICH MASKS ARE BEST?
In the absence of more specific guidance from health authorities such as the CDC as to which brands of respirators and other masks provide the best protection, some skilled amateurs have stepped in to fill the gap. Aaron Collins, aka “Mask Nerd,” is a mechanical engineer at Seagate Technology with a background in aerosol science. In his free time, he makes YouTube videos in which he tests and reviews high-filtration masks made by various manufacturers. Collins says he does not earn any money from mask manufacturers or his videos themselves—he considers them a service and wants them to be objective.
Collins has a mask-testing setup in his bathroom, where he assesses masks’ filtration efficiency by generating aerosols of sodium chloride (salt). He then uses a condensation particle counter—a device that measures the concentration of particles inside and outside a mask he is wearing—to determine the total inward leakage through and around the mask. (For comparison, NIOSH’s N95 standard requires manufacturers to measure leakage through the respirator material itself. And OSHA measures how a respirator fits on someone’s face, which often involves wearing an N95 in an enclosed space with saccharin or another distinctly flavored test aerosol sprayed in: if the wearer reports tasting the substance, the mask fails the fit test.)
Collins also tests “pressure drop,” which is basically how easy it is to breathe while wearing a mask. If doing so is too difficult, a wearer might not only find the mask less comfortable but also suck in air around its sides, negating its filtration. Some cloth masks—including those outfitted with coffee filters—have this problem. “There’s a reason N95s aren’t made from cloth,” Collins says.
The Mask Nerd’s top picks can be found in this video. In general, he recommends KN95s made by Chinese company Powecom and others, a variety of KF94s such as the Bluna FaceFit and N95s made by reputable brands such as 3M, Moldex or Honeywell. All of these masks had close to 99 percent filtration efficiencies and fairly low pressure drops in Collins’s setup. (For comparison, he found that a surgical mask alone had between about 50 and 75 percent filtration efficiency, depending on the fit, and a good cloth mask had about 70 percent.) But when choosing the best mask, comfort should be a deciding factor, he says. Not everyone needs to wear an N95.
“To me, the minimum I want to see people wear is a KN95 or KF94 with the Delta variant,” Collins says. “I don’t think surgical masks are good enough anymore, and we should’ve gotten rid of cloth masks last summer—they’re not even in the spectrum” of good filtration. (To be clear, some studies have found that surgical and cloth masks can provide at least some protection against COVID. A recent large, randomized study in Bangladesh found that surgical masks significantly lowered the risk of infection; cloth masks did not have a measurable benefit, although other studies suggest they provide some protection.)
THE BEST MASKS FOR KIDS
With children starting school in-person, many parents are understandably worried about their kids, especially those who are too young to be eligible for vaccination—and particularly in states where politicians have tried to ban mask mandates in schools. These parents might find Collins’s recommendations for high-filtration kids’ masks particularly helpful. There is no N95 standard for children, but plenty of manufacturers make KF94 or KN95 masks for them. Such masks are designed for small faces and are easy to put on. Collins sees no reason why kids could not tolerate them. “I have my own son,” Collins says. “He’s five years old. He wore them all summer.”
WHERE TO FIND LEGITIMATE MASKS
An issue with commercially available high-filtration masks is that they may not come from reputable suppliers. The CDC’s Web site warns that about 60 percent of KN95 respirators available in the U.S. are counterfeit. To find ones that are legitimate, Prather recommends the Web site Project N95. Masks can also be ordered directly from suppliers such as Bona Fide Masks, which sells KN95s made by Powecom. “That’s the one people swear by,” Prather says. They cost around $1 each. DemeTECH sells N95s for around $4 apiece, as well as other types of masks.
REUSING MASKS
One reason people may be reluctant to use KN95s and similar masks is because they are usually considered disposable. But several experts say they can in fact be worn multiple times. “You can probably reuse it until it becomes visibly damaged or soiled,” Marr says. Collins’s amateur testing suggests mask can be used for up 40 hours with no decrease in their filtration efficacy (he recommends using them within six months of opening a package). The virus likely does not survive long on these masks, but it is not a bad idea to have a few in rotation, reusing one every three days or so, Collins says. DOUBLE MASKING
One popular way to increase effectiveness is to wear a cloth mask on top of a surgical mask. This strategy, which the CDC has recommended, combines the filtration efficiency of the surgical mask material with the fit of a cloth mask. But how well does it actually work?
According to Collins, pretty well. He measured a filtration efficiency of upward of 90 percent for a cloth mask (with nose wire) over a surgical mask. But the pressure drop was almost twice as high as that of an N95. One reason the CDC and others have recommended against the use of N95s by the general public, apart from their previous scarcity, is that they can be difficult to breathe through—so Collins finds it “baffling” that the CDC would recommend double masking. “So does double masking work? Yes, but … I think there are better solutions,” he said in one of his videos.
Another way to get a better fit is to use masks with straps that go around the back of the head or to use a mask brace if one only has access to a surgical mask.
Not all experts agree that high-filtration masks are necessary for everyone. “What I usually say is ‘The best mask is the one you wear properly,’” says Judith Flores, a pediatrician and a fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics and of the New York Academy of Medicine. Flores believes surgical masks are the most convenient and cleanest option if they are discarded after each use. Cloth masks are okay, too, she adds, as long as they have three layers. “Unless you are a health care worker or home care worker tending to a person who is COVID-positive,” Flores says, “you don’t need an N95.”
FACIAL HAIR
What about the bewhiskered among us? How does facial hair influence the effectiveness of various masks? While there are not a great deal of data on this, some research suggests that the longer a person’s beard or mustache is, the less effective a mask will be because it makes an inferior seal with the face. The CDC has released a somewhat amusing graphic demonstrating styles of facial hair that are appropriate to wear with a respirator.
At this point in the pandemic, with supplies of high-quality masks readily available in many areas, perhaps it is time to ditch loose-fitting cloth or surgical masks for something that provides better protection. “The most important layer of protection,” Prather says, “is to never let the virus get out in the air in the first place.”
ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S) Tanya Lewis is a senior editor at Scientific American who covers health and medicine. Follow Tanya Lewis on Twitter Credit: Nick Higgins
Edmonton's syphilitic cemetery bunnies killed off by different rare rabbit disease
Author of the article:
Lauren Boothby
Publishing date:
Dec 19, 2021 •
Rabbits are seen in Holy Cross Cemetery at 14611 Mark Messier Trail in Edmonton, on Friday, July 31, 2020. Groups of bunnies relaxed in the shade of the cemetery's trees. PHOTO BY IAN KUCERAK /Postmedia
Article content
A fluffle of feral cemetery rabbits at a northwest Edmonton cemetery, plagued by a syphilis outbreak in 2020, has been wiped out by a different and rare illness.
Advertisement
Rabbit haemorrhagic disease (RHD) was discovered in three bunnies living in the colony at and around Holy Cross Cemetery in September, according to a memo from the Alberta government. By the end of September about 50 had died or disappeared
Very few, if any, are still alive.
“It was a very hot virus that rapidly ran through the colony and killed essentially all the feral domestic rabbits,” Margo Pybus, University of Alberta professor and wildlife disease expert, said in an email.
This disease is highly infectious with a rapid onset, and is almost always fatal in European rabbits, of which pet rabbits are descendants. It causes organ damage and internal bleeding. In some places it has spread to wildlife.
Gone after 30 years
Before it was decimated, the libidinous fluffle of feral domestic rabbits lived at the cemetery and surrounding areas for about 30 years.
Advertisemen
Klack’s group began capturing bunnies with syphilis symptoms — including fur loss, and crusting or sores on the eyes, mouth and genitals — in the summer of 2020 with the cemetery’s permission. But many rabbits were much sicker than expected, so rescuers were allowed to take any they could find.
Of about 200 rescued Klack said only 130 survived.
“Every rabbit we caught ended up being just overloaded with normally two to three different types of worms and parasites along with the syphilis,” they said in a recent interview.
Many were malnourished and had reproductive cancers, they said.
“A lot of volunteers got really burnt out because the rabbits they were rescuing were dying three days later. There was literally nothing we could do even with the best vet care,” they said. “I kept joking that my backyard is just one giant graveyard.”
Advertisemen
The rabbits, and volunteers, also had to deal with hungry predators: “I had a volunteer chased out by coyotes. They were just feasting on those rabbits.”
With rescue efforts the colony began shrinking but numbers climbed again earlier this year, said Klack.
As they was preparing to resume rescues, a single case of RHD was confirmed in southern Alberta. Volunteers instead focused on getting rabbits already in care vaccinated.
While Klack had always hoped one day the colony would disappear — as domestic rabbits aren’t fit to live in the wild — they hoped it would be because the bunnies found new homes.
“I’m sad that I couldn’t rescue more, but knowing that there isn’t a giant colony out there that’s sick with syphilis and worms and all sorts of nasties, and that coyotes won’t be as big of a problem, that makes me happy,” they said. “It’s very much a multifaceted feeling.
Advertisement
“There’s not going to be more generations upon generations of rabbits just being born to suffer and die.”
Rabbits are seen in Holy Cross Cemetery at 14611 Mark Messier Trail in Edmonton, on Friday, July 31, 2020. Groups of bunnies relaxed in the shade of the cemetery’s trees.PHOTO BY IAN KUCERAK /Postmedia
Disease arrives
Alberta’s first case of RHD was detected in Taber in March. The onset is quick and early symptoms can go undetected. Rabbits often die suddenly .
While the disease is new to Alberta, there were outbreaks in feral domestic rabbits in B.C. in 2018 and 2019.
Wild rabbits and hares have typically been immune to RHA, but a new strain killed some wildlife in the western United States and northern Mexico last year, according to an Alberta government handout. Alberta’s mountain cottontails, white-tailed jackrabbits, snowshoe hares and pikas may be at risk.
So far there isn’t evidence the disease spread to local wildlife.
Advertisement
But according to the BCSPCA, genetic sequencing of the case found in southern Alberta closely resembles the strain in the U.S. which has killed and infected wild animals.
“This has significant implications for wild rabbit welfare as well as ecosystem health, and also means that if the virus spreads to B.C., it could be virtually impossible to eliminate,” reads a release on the organization’s website this summer.
There is no treatment or cure for RHD. Vaccines aren’t approved in Canada but the B.C. government procured some using an emergency provision. Some Alberta veterinarians also ordered shipments from the B.C. government, but this program was recently discontinued.
Sorelle Saidman, president of Rabbitats Rescue Society in B.C., who helped co-ordinate efforts for some Alberta veterinarians to get vaccines said Alberta needs to make vaccines available. But, she said, many don’t care about rabbits.
“They’re not barking for attention, they’re not purring when they’re getting their pets … (but) they’re very affectionate, very sentient. They just need extra protection because they seem so unassuming.”
Request for information from the Alberta government about how the disease arrived, how many and which kinds of animals have been killed, and whether it is working to acquire RHD vaccines were not answered by deadline.
A rabbit is seen outside Holy Cross Cemetery at 14611 Mark Messier Trail in Edmonton, on Friday, July 31, 2020. Groups of bunnies relaxed in the shade of the cemetery’s trees. Photo by Ian Kucerak/PostmediaPHOTO BY IAN KUCERAK /Postmedia
Why carbon capture and storage is key to avoiding the worst effects of the climate emergency
Naoko Ellis, Professor in Chemical Engineering, University of British Columbia
With the ongoing climate emergency and nations’ commitments to meet net-zero goals by 2050, there’s a heightened need to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions through whatever means possible. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) or carbon capture, utilization and sequestration (CCUS) are included in the mitigation pathways set out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Despite this, carbon capture technologies have been labelled as a distraction from supporting renewable energies and as extending the life of the oil and gas industry. But CCUS is a technology we cannot ignore.
CCUS are technologies that concentrate carbon dioxide from various streams, including combustion stacks, industrial processes and air, and either make use of the carbon dioxide or store it away. I research the technical development of carbon capture and previously oversaw the innovation around CCUS through Carbon Management Canada, and have come to understand these technologies.
The climate emergency is a complex problem
Mitigation — finding ways to avoid the worst effects of the climate emergency — is a hugely complex problem. The problem itself is multifaceted, value-laden and carries uncertainty. There is no silver bullet.
Complexity science — a research approach that studies the interconnectedness of dynamic systems — tells us that in order to deal with complex problems, we need to apply non-linear thinking (draw connections from multiple concepts) and be adaptive and learn. Given the urgent need to decarbonize, we need renewable energy sources to replace fossil fuels to produce electricity. But this will take time, and it is here, through this transition period, that CCUS can provide a much-needed technical solution.
We also need CCUS to decarbonize heavy industries such as cement and steel, which account for about 10 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. Using renewable energy won’t affect their emissions much because carbon dioxide is released from the material used in the process, and not through combustion. CCUS technologies can be a strong part of the arsenal to accelerate the decarbonization of industries.
Time matters in the race to decarbonization. Fortunately, CCUS technologies are no longer a curiosity or experimental, but are ready or nearly ready to be exploited.
Visitors tour part of the Boundary Dam Power Station in Estevan, Sask., in 2014. The carbon capture and storage project is the world’s first commercial-scale operation.
Canada has successfully demonstrated CCS at Boundary Dam, a coal-fired power station near Estevan, Sask. The technology is based on a liquid that absorbs carbon dioxide from emissions and lets the other gases through, and then releases pure carbon dioxide into another stream, allowing it to be captured and stored.
Over the past seven years, this demonstration project — the world’s first — has provided much information about capturing carbon dioxide from a coal-power plant, and has become a benchmark for technology developers. Researchers like myself learned that a liquid sorbent (the substance that absorbs the carbon dioxide molecules) requires large amounts of energy for regeneration (compared to solid sorbents) and degrades over time, releasing toxic chemicals.
The small CCUS steps taken almost a decade ago are now being followed by a flurry of innovative technologies whose commercial deployment can be measured in months or in a few years.
For example, Svante is developing a carbon capture technology using structured solid sorbent to bind carbon dioxide. The solid sorbent is placed in a rotating column that captures diluted carbon dioxide from flue gas and releases concentrated carbon dioxide when it’s exposed to steam. Svante is currently scaling its operations and working with hard-to-abate industrial emissions — such as in cement and steel industries.
Plumes rise from the chimneys of the Tenaris steel mill factory, in Dalmine, Italy.
Marketed as an industrial lung, CO₂ solutions Inc. is also developing carbon capture technology using a naturally occurring enzyme to capture carbon dioxide from flue streams and provide pure carbon dioxide stream as chemical feedstock for building material and fuels.
These are just a couple, from a large number of examples of CCUS innovations being developed and commercialized by start-ups and small-to-medium enterprises all over the world. Yet the perception of CCUS technologies continues to be that they are high-risk and too costly.
We need commitment and will
The cost of carbon capture reflects the capital cost of building the system, concentrating the incoming carbon dioxide stream and providing the energy required to purify the carbon dioxide stream. As technologies develop and more versions are adopted, the cost of carbon dioxide capture and conversion will decrease.
However, they will remain costly even with the best of scenarios. If we want to add value to carbon dioxide, thermodynamics tell us that it will inevitably require energy — and energy has a cost.
Just as we, as a society, have come to accept paying for the proper handling of our solid wastes, industry must accept paying for the proper handling of its carbon dioxide emissions. Clearly, we can no longer expect to limit the global temperature rise to 1.5 C without considerable commitment of funds and political will.
Critics may say that we are gambling with unproven technologies, but many of these technologies are far from unproven. Yes, many are being challenged through their scale-up, but this is typical of any new technology in any industry. We shouldn’t paint CCUS with a large brush stroke, but rather understand these technologies with granularity and in context.
There are many industrial emissions, such as lime kiln in the cement and pulp and paper industries, that require carbon dioxide capture from their processes. Just as we need to consider alternative fuel sources for transportation, heating and others, we need to look at industrial emissions in various sectors in context.
Demonstration projects allow us to continuously learn about how technologies improve, how the social systems react and adjust to changes, and how to change policies. At this point, we no longer have the luxury of finding the best solution that addresses such a complex problem as the climate emergency.
Instead, we need to deploy some technologies based on our best judgement, learn from the cases and improve our understanding and technologies. We need to embrace some carefully chosen CCUS technologies and try to reduce emissions quickly, while we continue to develop and improve them and as we continue to deploy renewable energy sources.
Canada has contributed to CCUS through research and innovation, and demonstrated a few successful CCUS projects. With our commitment to place a price on carbon, we have a greater chance at succeeding in applying CCUS technologies to decarbonize our activities. We have now entered the all-hands-on-deck phase to quickly mitigate the devastating effects of the climate emergency. Let’s shift the narrative on CCUS and reduce carbon emissions with all the available tools. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Naoko Ellis receives funding from the Canadian Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC). She is registered with the Engineers and Geoscientists British Columbia.
SOMETHING OUT OF A NURSERY RHYME
2 babies survive tornado that carried them away in bathtub
Two babies survived a tornado in Kentucky last weekend that ripped the bathtub they were sheltering in out of the ground and tossed it with them inside, their grandmother said.
Clara Lutz told WFIE-TV that she put 15-month-old Kaden and 3-month-old Dallas in the bathtub last Friday with a blanket, a pillow and a Bible. Then the house in Hopkins County started shaking.
“Next thing I knew, the tub had lifted and it was out of my hands,” Lutz said. "I couldn’t hold on. I just – oh my God.”
Lutz, who had been hit in the back of the head by the water tank from the tub, said she began looking everywhere among the wreckage for the children. Her house was stripped to the foundation.
“All I could say was, ‘Lord please bring my babies back safely. Please, I beg thee,’” she said.
The bathtub was found in her yard, upside down, with the babies underneath. Authorities from the sheriff's office drove to the end of her driveway and reunited her with the two children, she said.
Dallas had a big bump on the back of his head and had to go to Vanderbilt University Medical Center Nashville because his brain was bleeding, but the bleeding stopped before Lutz got to the hospital, she said.
Lutz said the parents of the children live on the north end of the county and their home was nearly untouched by the tornado.
In Kentucky, state emergency management officials and the state health department put the current count at 75. The governor, who said his staff believes there are an additional three deaths, said Saturday that all of the people reported missing in the state after the outbreak of tornadoes have been accounted for.
