Friday, August 20, 2021

GREENWASHING FROM VISUAL CAPITALIST
CANADIAN INVESTMENT IN URANIUM
YOU MAY OR MAYNOT FIND THESE ATTRIBUTED IN MSM

Uranium: Powering the Cleanest Source of Energy


Published 12 hours ago
on August 19, 2021
By Sponsored Content
The following content is sponsored by the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust



Uranium: Powering the Cleanest Source of Energy

The world’s energy needs are growing with its population. However, achieving a net-zero carbon economy while meeting our growing energy needs requires a larger role for clean, sustainable, and reliable sources. Nuclear is one such energy source.

The above graphic from the Sprott Physical Uranium Trust highlights how uranium is powering one of the cleanest and most reliable sources of energy in nuclear power.
The Cleanest Energy Sources

Although all energy sources have tradeoffs, some are better for the environment than others.

To find the cleanest sources of energy, Our World in Data calculated CO2-equivalent emissions per gigawatt-hour (GWh) of electricity generated over the lifecycle of power plants for different energy sources. This includes the footprint of raw materials, transport, and construction of power plants.

Energy SourceCO2-equivalent Emissions Per GWh (tonnes)TypeCoal 820 Fossil fuel
Oil 720 Fossil fuel
Natural Gas 490 Fossil fuel
Biomass 78-230* Non-renewable
Hydro 34 Renewable
Solar 5 Renewable
Wind 4 Renewable
Nuclear 3 Non-renewable


*Emissions from biomass vary depending on the type of fuel combusted.

It’s not surprising that coal, oil, and natural gas plants emit much more greenhouse gases than their renewable and non-renewable counterparts. In fact, emissions per GWh from coal power plants are roughly 273 times higher than nuclear power plants.

Hydropower offers a cleaner and renewable alternative to fossil fuels, however, the concrete and materials used in dam construction contribute to emissions. Furthermore, the decomposition of underwater vegetation in reservoirs also releases methane and carbon dioxide into the environment. Still, emissions per GWh from hydropower are around 24 times lower than coal.

Solar and wind are often the most mentioned energy sources when it comes to the clean energy transition. However, their energy densities are lower than fossil fuels and as a result, they often require more units to generate the same amount of power. For example, generating one GWh of electricity can take more than three million photovoltaic panels, or 412 utility-scale wind turbines. Constructing these massive solar and wind farms adds up to a relatively large material footprint and consequently, GHG emissions.

This is where nuclear power comes in.

Why is Nuclear the Cleanest Source of Energy?

Nuclear power plants use fission to generate electricity without any combustion, avoiding emissions from the process of electricity generation. What’s more, on average, it only takes one typical nuclear reactor to generate one GWh of electricity. The power generation capacity of nuclear reactors is largely due to the high energy density of uranium and nuclear fuel.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, a single, eraser-sized uranium pellet contains the same amount of energy as 120 gallons of oil or 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas. This allows nuclear power plants to generate large amounts of electricity efficiently, making them one of the cleanest energy sources per GWh of electricity produced.
Nuclear’s Role in the Clean Energy Transition

Nuclear power offers several advantages in the transition to clean energy.

Besides being carbon-free and sustainable, nuclear power is also one of the most reliable and safest sources of energy. In fact, nuclear plants in the United States have a capacity factor of 92.5%, which means that they run at maximum capacity for almost 93% of the time during a year.

As one of the cleanest, most powerful, and reliable sources of energy, nuclear power could play a key role in helping countries achieve decarbonization goals in the fight against climate change.


Road to Decarbonization: U.S. Coal Plant Closures

This infographic highlights announced coal plant closures in the U.S. and how much power will be affected.


Published 2 days ago
on August 17, 2021
By Sponsored Content


Road to Decarbonization: U.S. Coal Plant Closures

As the push to decarbonize starts to kick into gear in the U.S., how do coal plant closures factor into the equation?

With a target of net-zero emissions by 2050, the U.S. is examining all aspects of its economy to see where action is needed. In the automotive industry, for example, the Biden administration is aiming for half of new vehicles to be electric by 2030, following in the footsteps of automakers that have made similar commitments.

But in the power sector that supplies electricity for much of the country, fossil fuels continue to be large emission sources. Coal, which accounted for just 19% of electricity generated in the U.S. in 2020, created 54% of the power sector’s emissions.

That’s leading to U.S. utilities feeling the pressure to retire coal plants and look for alternatives. This infographic from the National Public Utilities Council visualizes the coal plant closures that have been announced, and how much power will be affected as a result.
Where Are U.S. Coal Plant Closures Happening?

Accurately tracking coal plant closures currently means turning to non-profits and parsing through company reports. To assemble this list, we leveraged the Global Energy Monitor and Carbon Brief and cross-referenced against company sustainability reports and news releases.

The result? 80 coal plants with a total capacity of 98.3 GW publicly scheduled for full retirement over the next three decades.
Search:
PlantStateRetirement DateCapacity (MW)Burlington IA 2021 212
Dolet Hills LA 2021 721
AES Hawaii HI 2022 204
Coal Creek ND 2022 1,210
E.D. Edwards IL 2022 645
Edgewater WI 2022 414
Fayette* (announced not confirmed) TX 2022 1,690
Heskett ND 2022 115
Joppa IL 2022 1,100
Meramec MO 2022 924

Showing 1 to 10 of 80 entries

Noticeably, most of the coal plant closures are targeted in the Midwest (which uses the most coal for power). And most of the retirements are coming early, with the 2020s seeing more than half of announced closures and retired capacity (53.6 GW).

But the largest coal plants with announced retirement dates are currently scheduled for the 2030s and 2040s. That includes Duke Energy’s Gibson power plant in Indiana, the fifth largest coal plant in the U.S. and the largest with a retirement date.
What’s Next for U.S. Decarbonization?

Though it seems like the U.S. has a lot of coal plant closures announced, there’s a lot left to go.

The 98.3 GW of tracked coal plant closures is just 45% of U.S. coal electricity production in 2020. Though many utilities have talked about eventually assessing and planning retirements for some of the remaining 55%, no concrete plans have been announced yet.

“In our industry, deciding to exit coal-fired power is not taken lightly,” said Omaya Ahmad, Sustainability Policy Consultant at Arizona Public Service. “Our coal plants are often the oldest in our fleet and are largely the reason our service territories have grown and flourished into what they are today. However, the pressures presented by climate change and the economic demands tied to coal have required a commitment to transition to clean energy.”
Coal Plant Closures Are Part of a Larger Equation

But as Ahmad explains, turning off coal plants is not such a quick-and-easy fix.

“Such a transition will be a lofty undertaking and will not come without its own challenges,” said Ahmad. “Recognizing the regional transition landscape and timeline depicted on a map like this one will help utilities adequately prepare for and support their coal communities as we all take steps to reach a clean energy economy.”

And coal plants are just one part of the decarbonization equation. Some utilities are opting to transform coal power plants into natural gas plants, which are more cost-efficient and emit less than coal. Even though many utilities and consumers are turning away from carbon emitting fuel sources entirely, there are more than 200 new natural gas plants planned in the U.S.

But the big question is how the generated electricity from coal will be replaced. Communities that rely on coal for power (and economic strength) will have to turn to natural gas or work on renewables capacity, while others have already started the transition.

National Public Utilities Council is the go-to resource for all things decarbonization in the utilities industry. Learn more.


Deep Diving for Metals: Visualizing Ocean Mining


As more metals are necessary for electrification and clean energy transition, companies are looking at an unexplored market: ocean mining.


Published 1 week ago
on August 12, 2021
By Sponsored Content


Deep Diving for Metals: Visualizing Ocean Mining

The mining sector has been one of the biggest beneficiaries in the COVID-19 recovery.

Several countries’ recovery packages have ignited demand for commodities like copper, iron ore and lithium. Given that more metals are necessary for electrification and the clean energy transition, many companies are looking at an unexplored market: ocean mining.

Mining of the Deep Sea is still under study but metals are abundant on the seafloor. Reserves are estimated to be worth anywhere from $8 trillion to more than $16 trillion.

This infographic from Prospector provides a visual overview of the seabed mining process.
Down in the Depths

The most prolific area for ocean mining is the Clarion Clipperton Zone (CCZ) in the Eastern Pacific Ocean, between Hawaii and Mexico. Almost 20 international mining companies have contracts to explore the region which spans over 5,000 kilometers.

Most of the metals are found in potato-sized rock-like polymetallic nodules. Millions of years old, the nodules grow by absorbing metals from the seawater, expanding slowly around the core of shell, bone, or rock.
Show entries
Search:
Mineral DepositsDepthMineralsPolymetallic sulfide 1,000 to 4,000m Copper, lead, zinc, silver, and gold
Polymetallic nodules 3,000 to 6,500m Nickel, cobalt, manganese, copper, ammonium sulfate
Cobalt crusts 1,000 to 2,500m Cobalt, nickel, manganese, rare earth, iron, copper

Showing 1 to 3 of 3 entries
PreviousNext

Source: The Pew Charitable Trusts

It is estimated that there are 21 billion tonnes of polymetallic nodules resting on the ocean floor in the CCZ, containing an estimated:
6 billion tonnes of manganese
226 million tonnes of copper – about 25% of land-based reserves
94,000 million tonnes of cobalt – about six times as much as current land-based reserves
270 million tonnes of nickel – 100 times the annual global nickel production in 2019

Cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts are found on the sides of underwater mountain ranges and seamounts. Similar to nodules, these crusts form over millions of years as metal compounds in the water. Roughly 57% of them are located in the Pacific.

Polymetallic sulfide deposits formed after seawater seeps into volcanic rocks can be found along tectonic plate boundaries on the Pacific Ocean, Indian Ocean, and the Atlantic Ocean.
How Does Ocean Mining Work?

Extraction of minerals from the seafloor is planned to involve either modified dredging (for nodules), cutting (for massive sulphides and crusts), and transport of the material as a slurry in a riser or basket system to a surface support vessel.

The mineral-bearing material is then processed in a ship (cleaning and dewatering – with the wastewater and sediment being returned to the ocean) and then transferred to a barge for transport to shore where it will be further processed to extract the target metals.
Towards a Greener Future

Growing demand for batteries to power electric cars and store wind and solar energy has driven up the cost of many metals and bolstered the business case for seabed mining.

According to a study published in the Journal of Cleaner Production, producing battery metals from nodules could reduce emissions of CO² by 70-75%, cut land use by 94% and eliminate 100% of solid waste.

Here is a look at how ocean and land mining compares:
Show entries
Search:
ProcessOcean MiningLand MiningProspecting time 1-2 years 2-8 years
Exploration cost USD $20 million USD $10 million
Development time 4-6 years from discovery 10+ years from discovery
Development cost USD $1 billion Up to billions of dollars a year
Mining and extraction Less than USD $1 billion yearly, 20-30+ years Up to billions of dollars a year, 50+ years
Closure and reclamation Investigative ways to offset displacement of sea life and surfaces Restore the lands to the extent possible, revegetate, dry tailings ponds

Source: The Metals Company

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) has so far approved 28 exploration contracts in the Pacific, Indian and Atlantic Oceans, covering 1.3 million square kilometers of the ocean floor.

With many companies turning their eyes to the unexplored riches of the ocean, seabed mining could offer a wealth of untapped minerals on the ocean floor.

THE VISUAL CAPITALIST
CLIMATE CHANGE
Contradictory Headlines Show Fossil Fuel Market Confusion

Photo by Cynthia Shahan, CleanTechnica


By David Waterworth


It surely must be turmoil in the fossil fuel future predictions industry. Huge variations can be found in expectations of demand and supply. A recent newsletter from mining.com had the following headlines, all in the one issue of its energy news digest. My head is spinning.

US push for green energy could strand $68 billion in coal, gas assets – report


S&P Global Market Intelligence has issued a report warning emitters that their efforts to decarbonize might not go far enough. Pollution control equipment installed at gas and coal-fired power stations will not be able to do enough to meet the Biden administration’s Clean Energy Standard.

Brazil offers lifeline to coal after UN calls for ‘death knell’


Brazil’s Mines and Energy Ministry on Monday published details of the Program for Sustainable Use of National Mineral Coal, a new program that would support the coal sector through 2050. Using special tax regimes and a program of modernization for coal plants, the government seeks to maintain jobs in the industry.

China’s green ambitions aren’t halting new coal and steel plans


How will President Xi Jinping’s goal of peak CO2 emissions be achieved by 2030 when state-owned firms are proposing to build 43 new coal-fired generators and 18 new blast furnaces? This will lock the steel-making sector into further coal dependency. Mixed signals indeed.

First new oil sands pipeline in years could start next month

More heavy oil from Canada’s tar sands. As early as mid-September, the oil could start to flow (760,000 barrels a day) from Alberta to Wisconsin. Another pipeline is due to commence service in 2022. Both pipelines have faced years of litigation and protests.

Russell: Asia coal demand surge in stark contrast with UN climate warning


On the one hand we have the stark warnings of the IPCC report and on the other we have surging demand and prices for coal in Asia. A staggering 80 million ton of coal was delivered to Asian ports in June.

So, when will demand fall? Who knows? Nail biting time for executives in the fossil fuel industry. One could say they are making hay while the sun shines, but I think we need a better metaphor. Dig it, pump it, sell it where you can … the end is nigh, sometime.
AUSTRALIA

Household power bills could jump if ageing power plants are paid to remain open, report warns


By business reporter Gareth Hutchens
Posted 8h ago
Is the National Electricity Market under threat from the influx of renewable energy providers?
(ABC News: Chris Gillette)
Share

Households on Australia's east coast could see their power bills jump by hundreds of dollars a year if they are forced to pay coal and gas plants to keep running, a new report warns.

Key points:

The Energy Security Board has recommended paying ageing power plants to remain open

A new report warns the cost will be borne by consumers

It estimates household power bills could face charges more than double the carbon price


The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), and Green Energy Markets, have released a report warning households could face power bills of $182 to $430 more a year if a new proposal goes ahead.


They say those charges would far exceed the impact of the carbon price on power bills.


Their report criticises a proposal by the Energy Security Board (ESB) to introduce a "capacity payment" to the National Electricity Market.


The National Electricity Market (NEM) spans Australia's eastern and south-eastern coasts, connecting five states (and the Australian Capital Territory) with electricity via thousands of kilometres of transmission lines.
The National Electricity Market (NEM) connects every state and territory, except for Western Australia and the Northern Territory. This map shows some of the network's major transmission infrastructure.(

Source: Australian Energy Market Operator website)

The ESB says it is concerned about the speed with which renewable energy providers are entering the electricity network.

It has recommended paying ageing power plants to stay open — even if they're not providing power — in case they're needed during extreme demand peaks in coming years.

It said such payments would ensure the system had capacity to meet any demand, and avoid blackouts, without suffering from the sudden withdrawal of ageing coal plants as the network evolved towards lower emissions.

However, Johanna Bowyer, report co-author and IEEFA electricity analyst, says the ESB's proposal would see consumers paying extra money to bail out ageing power generators for little benefit.

“The ESB’s new proposal will require electricity consumers to pay primarily conventional generators such as coal and gas plants for what they could produce if the plant was operating at its full level of capacity, regardless of whether or not, or how often, the generator uses all of its capacity to produce electricity,” Ms Bowyer said.

“While it is true that several coal power plants are facing financial difficulties, our analysis finds that reliability is not at threat by the level of likely coal power plant exits over the next 10 years.

“Thanks in part to actions of the federal government, there is a flood of dispatchable capacity entering the NEM. This covers a range of controllable sources of power from hydro to batteries, bioenergy, gas and even some small coal power plant upgrades.”
Electricity has become a jigsaw


When the early closure of Victoria's second-biggest coal-fired power station was announced last week, something the energy minister said was less than complete.Read more


Report co-author, Tristan Edis of Green Energy Markets, says the grid is in a very different situation to when Hazelwood was shut down in 2017.

“From 2017 to 2027, almost 6,500 megawatts of dispatchable power project capacity will be added to the grid,” Mr Edis said.

“To put this into perspective, this is almost double the capacity that will be lost from the next three coal power stations due to close after 2027 — Yallourn, Callide B and Vales Point B.

“This means that all states across the NEM have enough power capacity for the next decade to meet the strict reliability standard of satisfying more than 99.998 per cent of demand.

“There are also thousands of megawatts of further battery projects in development which could be committed to construction if required," he said.
What are the current rules?

Under current rules, power plants are paid for the power they produce which is used by consumers.

Verrender: Truth on energy

Much of the debate about our future power generation has become mired in political point scoring and simplistic arguments designed to inflame and outrage, writes Ian Verrender.Read more


However, when renewable energy generators (such as wind and solar) provide large amounts of energy to the system, ageing power plants (such as coal and gas) can run at a loss, threatening their viability.

The ESB has therefore recommended introducing a "capacity payment" to the market, which would see energy retailers paying additional money to conventional power plants based on the size of the installed capacity of their generators, rather than the power they actually provide.

Federal Energy Minister Angus Taylor has accepted the logic of the ESB's recommendation.

The Energy Security Board was created after South Australia's state-wide blackout in 2016, following a recommendation by the Finkel Review into the security of the National Electricity Market.
Analysis of potential impact

However, to estimate the potential impact the plan could have on household power bills, IEEFA has looked at the "capacity market prices" faced by households in Western Australia's electricity market.

According to its analysis, if households on Australia's east coast faced similar prices, the cost of power bills would rise by between $2.9 billion to $6.9 billion every year.


"We found households in the NEM would see their electricity bills increase anywhere between $182 and $430 a year," Ms Bower said.

"By way of comparison, the cost increase by New South Wales, Victorian and Queensland consumers from the carbon price was between $112 to $150.

"Based on the Western Australian capacity payments experience, consumers could be facing a new charge which is potentially more than double that of the carbon price."

The 22-page report, Energy Security Board's Capacity Payment: Burden on Households, was released on Friday.
Contested space

The "capacity payment" proposal has been welcomed by some players in the energy space, and opposed by others.

Electricity prices predicted to fall

A new report by the Australian Energy Market Commission predicts all states in the National Electricity Market will have lower energy prices in 2023 but not the ACT.Read more


Major energy consumer representative groups such as the Energy Users Association of Australia and the Aluminium Council do not support the proposal.

But large generators say the plan is necessary to keep ageing power plants viable and the power supply stable as the network slowly transitions to renewable energy.

They say sudden withdrawals of ageing power plants could threaten network's ability to provide uninterrupted power through the day.

The ESB's recommendation is sitting with Mr Taylor, and state energy ministers are also considering it.

A spokesman for Mr Taylor questioned the reliability of the report's analysis, and said the government was focused on "ensuring outcomes for consumers."

"A mechanism that values capacity provides the investment signals needed to ensure we have the reliable generation we need to safeguard affordable, reliable power for Australians as more renewables enter our energy system," the spokesman said.


Energy reforms are adrift and consumers and the planet will pay

Today the federal, state and territory energy ministers will meet to discuss a range of proposed, clean energy-based redesigns of the National Electricity Market (NEM), prepared by the Energy Security Board (ESB).

While Barnaby Joyce may still want to see what’s on the climate action ‘menu’, we know already that the Prime Minister’s easiest path to emissions reduction would be to reform the energy market in a way that allows renewables to crowd-out coal.

Institutional investors and millions of households are already building and installing the new solar, wind and batteries that will power the grid of the future.

All the federal government has to do is accelerate the redesign of the electricity system so that it is secure and reliable when coal power stations inevitably retire or fail.

In May the coal-fired Callide C power station in Queensland exploded. This caused cascading failures at Callide B, Stanwell and Gladstone coal power stations.

A month later it was Victoria’s turn when the Yallourn power station flooded, leading the government to declare a state energy emergency.

The Australian Energy Regulator has reported an incredible 1,000 days of “baseload outages” in the second quarter of this financial year.

As the climate crisis worsens and our aging coal fleet falters, there is a clear and urgent need to build a future-proof electricity system that is able to operate securely without fossil fuels.

The Australian Energy Market Operator recently announced that the NEM will be able to operate safely on 100% renewable energy for brief periods by 2025.

The primary challenge of the clean energy transition is political, not technical. Federal energy and emissions minister Angus Taylor has consistently undermined clean energy reform of the NEM and promoted subsidies for gas and coal.

Taylor has twice tried to sack the Board and terminate its reform project. Progressive Liberal energy ministers in NSW and SA teamed up with Labor and Green ministers to keep the reform process going.

Last month the ESB finished the “Post-2025” project and the redesign recommendations were sent to ministers. Taylor seems to be using ‘cabinet-in-confidence’ to control information about the reform process, even though they are not cabinet documents.

The federal government tasked the ESB’s work to the Energy National Cabinet Reform Committee. The problem is that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal recently ruled that the National Cabinet is not a committee of the federal cabinet and therefore not subject to confidentiality. Yet minister Taylor is yet to release the reform recommendations the public.

Bizarrely, Taylor has been campaigning on his preferred ESB recommendation, while at the same time keeping the paper secret. Other ministers are respecting the supposed confidentiality of the process that he is undermining.

Australia Institute research has shown that the policy Taylor supports would create a new market to prop up failing coal power stations and would be bad for consumers. It has been widely condemned by environmentalists and renewables companies.

It makes no sense to supposedly safeguard the NEM by forcing consumers to pay in advance for baseload that is out of action at a rate of 1000 days per quarter.

Imagine if the federal government banked on its coal capacity market to get Australia through a long hot summer and the outage rate was even higher.

For two and half years, hundreds of energy experts from across the industry, stakeholder groups and the research sector have worked with the ESB on the NEM redesign. Millions of dollars worth of effort has been expended.

Now nobody knows when the reform recommendations will be made public or when ministers will make their final decisions.

This policy uncertainty is delaying investment, which pushes up the cost of energy. It is bad for the economy and makes it harder for the Prime Minister to commit to deeper emissions reductions.

The states are stepping up while the federal government fails to lead. States are committing to carbon emissions reduction targets while building out massive Renewable Energy Zones. But they need to do more.

In the immediate-term, the report the states and commonwealth commissioned from the ESB should be made public immediately. It is policy advice to government, not a cabinet document.

In the short-term, the states must agree to schedule the orderly retirement of their remaining coal generators.

In the medium-term, they should draw on constructive recommendations from the ESB to procure the security services and energy resources required to safely manage that phase-out.

It is regrettable, but just as the states have led in Australia’s response to the COVID-19 crisis, they must now step in once again and save the NEM reform process from the clumsy mishandling of the federal government.

Dan Cass is an energy policy and regulatory expert at the independent think-tank the Australia Institute. @danjcass

 

Lethbridge Biogas to supply renewable natural gas to FortisBC

An aerial view of the Lethbridge Biogas plant. (Supplied by Lethbridge Biogas)
Aug 19, 2021 | 7:53 AM

LETHBRIDGE, AB – A Lethbridge-based company, which is the largest agricultural-based biogas facility of its kind in Western Canada, is teaming with FortisBC to supply enough energy to meet the needs of roughly 3,800 homes in British Columbia.

FortisBC Energy Inc. is now receiving carbon-neutral Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) from Lethbridge Biogas LP., which offers reliable disposal options for agricultural organic waste in the Southern Alberta region. Following an expansion to its facility to add a biogas upgrading system, Lethbridge Biogas signed a deal to provide FortisBC with up to 350,000 gigajoules of RNG per year.

READ MORE: Lethbridge Biogas undergoing $7-million expansion

FortisBC noted that this is its third source of RNG from outside of British Columbia as the company continues to add new volumes of renewable gases and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Director of renewable gas and low carbon fuels with FortisBC, David Bennett said, “greenhouse gases don’t recognize provincial borders, so our efforts to combat them shouldn’t be limited by geographical borders either.”

“That’s why, while we continue to develop local sources of RNG, we’re also searching for opportunities to bring more RNG supply into our system from outside of the province. Not only are we continuing to increase the amount of RNG in our system, we’re now working with a fellow RNG forerunner in Lethbridge Biogas. It’s an exciting time for us.”

FortisBC explains that when bacteria breaks down organic waste from sources like landfills, agricultural waste and wastewater from treatment facilities, it produces a biogas mostly made of methane. FortisBC can capture that biogas and purify it to create RNG, a carbon neutral energy source, rather than releasing methane into the environment. As the RNG mixes into the existing natural gas infrastructure, it displaces equivalent volumes of conventional natural gas and lowers greenhouse gas emissions overall.

Lethbridge Biogas’ director of operations, Stefan Michalski said, “RNG has become a highly sought-after commodity to reduce the carbon footprint in the natural gas supply chain.”

He added that the company is extremely thrilled to be part of FortisBC’s RNG supply system.

“This is a significant milestone for us, as we finally see full recognition for the value our facility provides in the context of environmental sustainability and greenhouse gas reductions. This allows us to expand on future feedstock opportunities and to offer reliable disposal options for organic waste in the region for decades to come.”

Lethbridge Biogas’ site is the largest agricultural-based biogas facility in Western Canada.

More on FortisBC’s RNG work is available here. More information about Lethbridge Biogas can be found here.

NOT THE COOLING WE WANT

Massive volcanoes could cool Earth 

more in a warming world


A 1991 eruption from Mount Pinatubo sent global temperatures plummeting.

 
ARLAN NAEG/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES

There are few forces on Earth more powerful than a large volcanic eruption. At their most potent, volcanoes inject millions of tons of Sun-blocking particles high into the atmosphere that can cool Earth for nearly 5 years, endangering crops and leading to “years without summer.” The most recent, the Philippines’s Mount Pinatubo eruption in 1991, caused a temporary 0.5°C drop in global temperatures.

Yet it’s become increasingly clear that even these monumental forces are being altered by human-driven climate change. Declining ice cover can trigger more frequent eruptions near the poles, in Iceland and elsewhere. And an increasingly layered ocean will allow more volcano-induced cooling to linger at Earth’s surface. Now, a new study suggests increased greenhouse gases will help the plumes from large eruptions reach higher, spread faster, and reflect more sunlight, causing more abrupt and extreme cooling.

Before humanity started in on its planet-altering course, volcanoes were one of the biggest climate players. Over the long term, they belched carbon dioxide from Earth’s interior, causing warming. But in the short term, their sulfur gases often react with water to form highly reflective particles called sulfates, triggering spells of global cooling. Dark smudges of ash littering ice cores—our best evidence of these early eruptions—are a dim reflection of the wild weather left in their wake

But the opposite is also true, it turns out: Climate can have a big impact on volcanoes. In the new study, Thomas Aubry, a geophysicist at the University of Cambridge, and colleagues combined computer simulations of idealized volcanic eruptions with a global climate model. They simulated the response to plumes released from midsize and large volcanoes both in historical conditions and by 2100, in a scenario when Earth is predicted to warm very rapidly.

The researchers found two countervailing trends. Normally just one or two midsize volcanic eruptions shoot through the troposphere each year, bypassing this cradle of Earth’s weather to reach the stratosphere, the calm, dry zone above. As reflective particles spread through the stratosphere, they cause a small spurt of global cooling. But when the troposphere warms, it expands in height, eventually putting the stratosphere out of reach for these eruptions.

“It's as if regulation basketball hoops around the world were suddenly raised a few inches, making it that much harder to score,” says Benjamin Black, a volcanologist at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, who is not affiliated with the study.


The story changes with Pinatubo-scale eruptions, however. In a world that warmed 6°C by 2100—an increase that matches only the most dire, and unlikely, projections of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report—the troposphere would grow 1.5 kilometers in height. But ultramassive eruptions would still be able to punch through to the stratosphere; what’s more, their gases would actually reach higher and travel faster than in the present climate, amplifying their cooling effect by 15%, the researchers report this month in Nature Communications. The reasons why come down to the bizarro world that is the stratosphere, Aubry says.

As greenhouse gases trap heat near Earth’s surface, the stratosphere is cooling, especially in its upper layers. That lets air mix more easily up and down in this layer of the atmosphere. By 2100, this mixing should help volcanic plumes travel about 1.5 kilometers higher than before, according to the team’s model. In addition, warming will accelerate the stratosphere’s primary wind pattern, causing the reflective volcanic particles to spread more quickly throughout the upper atmosphere to the poles, before they have time to coalesce into larger particles. And the smaller the particle, the more light it reflects.

The fact that midsize eruptions may no longer reach the stratosphere is “interesting and important,” says Michael Mills, an atmospheric chemist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research who was not involved with the study. And many of the trends identified in the new model—the cooling stratosphere, rising troposphere, and accelerating circulation—have already been seen in the real world. But it’s still uncertain whether the limited particle growth simulated by the new model reflects what would happen in the real world, Mills adds.

Indeed, the study raises more questions than it answers, Aubry says. “It’s more like opening a can of worms.” For one, it studies only tropical eruptions, not those closer to the poles, where the stratosphere is closer. And it is hard to say whether the increased cooling from large volcanoes or decreased cooling from smaller ones will win out as the bigger climate influence. “My gut feeling is that the large eruption effect will dominate,” he adds, simply given those eruptions’ sheer power as a climate lever.

The next step will be testing how these trends work under more realistic future warming levels—and in additional climate models. Researchers also hope to integrate other trends, including the increased eruptions expected to take place as glaciers melt off some polar volcanoes and the increasing stratification of the ocean, which allows more volcanic cooling to linger at the water’s surface, cooling the atmosphere. “My hope is we will never warm the climate enough to influence volcanoes,” Aubry says. “But it’s becoming a narrow, narrow pathway.”

 

China To Build Massive Green Hydrogen Project

China will build a large-scale green hydrogen production site in Inner Mongolia that will utilize a generation capacity of 1.85 GW of solar and 370 MW of wind to produce close to 67,000 tons of hydrogen annually.

This amount of hydrogen, if used in fuel cell cars, could eliminate the demand for about 28,000 tons of gasoline, BloombergNEF analyst Xiaoting Wang said, as quoted by Bloomberg.

Fuel cell cars are indeed on the Chinese authorities’ pollution-fighting agenda. Earlier this week, Argus reported Beijing’s authorities are already implementing plans to put 3,000 fuel cell vehicles on the streets of the city by the end of 2023, along with building 37 hydrogen fueling stations.

Carmakers are also ramping up production of fuel cell cars, the Argus report added. Between January and July, fuel cell vehicle output in China was 48.5 percent higher than a year earlier, at 664 cars. Sales of fuel cell cars in the seven-month period also rose substantially, by 47.7 percent, to 675 cars. Last year, China produced 1,000 fuel cell cars, with production severely affected by the pandemic.

State-owned oil major Sinopec also has big plans for hydrogen. Following ambitious targets to become carbon neutral by 2050, the company plans to build 1,000 hydrogen refueling stations by 2025, among other low-carbon projects such as EV charging stations and solar farms.

The Inner Mongolia site will produce some electricity for the grid, Bloomberg reports. Still, it will be only about a fifth of the total. The bulk would be used to produce green hydrogen. This scale would require massive electrolyzer capacity, BloombergNEF’s Wang said, more than is produced globally.

The project would need 465 MW of electrolysis capacity, the analyst noted. For context, global electrolyzer sales last year totaled 200 MW. Forecasts for this year see electrolyzer shipments doubling to 400 MW—still lower than what the Inner Mongolia project would need.

By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com

 

An aluminium smelter in Zouping, China. Two greenhouse gases whose atmospheric levels have soared in recent years have been traced to such smelters and to semiconductor factories in Japan and South Korea. Credit: Brent Lewin/Bloomberg/Getty

ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE

 

What’s the mystery source of two potent greenhouse gases? The trail leads to Asia

Atmospheric levels of two powerful heat-trapping gases are rising quickly — and are higher than official emissions records suggest.

The powerful greenhouse gases tetrafluoromethane and hexafluoroethane have been building up in the atmosphere from unknown sources. Now, modelling suggests that China’s aluminium industry is a major culprit.

The gases are thousands of times more effective than carbon dioxide at warming the atmosphere. Official tallies of tetrafluoromethane and hexafluoroethane emissions from factories are too low to account for the levels in the air, which began to rise in 2015 after seven years of relative stability.

Seeking to pinpoint the sources of those emissions, Jooil Kim at the University of California, San Diego, and his colleagues analysed air samples collected roughly every 2 hours between November 2007 and December 2019 on South Korea’s Jeju Island. The scientists also modelled the weather patterns that transported air across the island during that period, to track the gases’ origins.

The results suggest that aluminium smelters in China account for a large proportion of these chemicals in the atmosphere. Semiconductor factories in South Korea and Japan are probably also to blame.

 

There’s a new federal holiday in September. What does it mean for you?

For the first time, Sept. 30 will mark the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation.

In June, Ottawa declared it a federal statutory holiday that is meant to give public servants an opportunity to recognize the legacy of residential schools.

The designated paid holiday for federal employees also addresses one of the 94 calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission: “We call upon the federal government, in collaboration with Aboriginal peoples, to establish, as a statutory holiday, a National Day for Truth and Reconciliation to honour survivors, their families, and communities, and ensure that public commemoration of the history and legacy of residential schools remains a vital component of the reconciliation process.”

READ MORE: Senate unanimously votes to create national holiday for truth and reconciliation

Saskatchewan has not declared it a provincial holiday. However, it does fall on the same day as provincially-proclaimed Orange Shirt Day — a day on which people honour residential school survivor Phyllis Webstad, who had her orange shirt taken away on the first day of school.

“We continue to proclaim Sept. 30 as Orange Shirt Day and recognize it as an important day of remembrance for those who have suffered harm and to honour those lives that were lost at residential schools,” said a Government of Saskatchewan spokesperson.

Employees still have to work that day, but all provincial government buildings will lower flags to half-mast.

Similarly, in Saskatchewan schools, staff and students will be in the classroom on Sept. 30.

As they do every year, school divisions in Regina and Saskatoon are planning Orange Shirt Day activities to reflect on the multigenerational impacts of residential schools.

READ MORE: SaskTel Centre, STC to host concert celebrating National Day of Truth and Reconciliation

“For Regina Public Schools, it is a day which specifically honours residential school survivor Phyllis (Jack) Webstad, and is an opportunity to build on learnings about residential schools, reconciliation, Indigenous ways of learning, land based education and treaties, including Treaty 4 on which the school division exists,” said Regina Public Schools spokesperson Terry Lazarou.

For staff and students at both the University of Regina (U of R) and University of Saskatchewan (USask), they will get the day off.

In alignment with the U of R’s commitment to Truth and Reconciliation, a university spokesperson said all campuses will be closed Sept. 30 to observe the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. Classes will resume Oct. 1.

“Members of our University community are also encouraged to attend other events and ceremonies marking National Truth and Reconciliation Day, and to take the time to reflect on our individual roles and responsibilities in travelling the path towards reconciliation,” the U of R spokesperson said.

In a campus-wide email, USask provost and vice-president academic Dr. Airini confirmed the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation will be an official university holiday, which gives all faculty, staff and students the day off.

“We hope our campus community can use the time to learn, reflect and contemplate how we can do our part to eliminate structural and overt racism and other forms of discrimination on our campus, in our communities and across the country,” Dr. Airini said.

READ MORE: Saskatoon gift shop sells orange shirts to support residential school survivors

“The world needs a university where Indigenous concepts, methodologies, pedagogies, languages, and philosophies are respectfully woven into the tapestry of learning, research, scholarship, creativity, and community engagement.”

Planning for the statutory holiday closure and Orange Shirt Day programming is underway at both USask and the U of R.

In Saskatoon, city administration is currently reviewing the various collective agreements in place to determine the impact of the newly declared federal holiday, according to city manager Jeff Jorgenson.

“At this time, our focus is on recognizing the day with appropriate acknowledgement. The City of Saskatoon supports efforts to elevate the significance of September 30th and to reflect on the legacy and impacts of the Indian Residential School System,” Jorgenson said.

The City of Regina declined an interview at this time, but said it will have more information on its plans for the National Day of Truth and Reconciliation in the coming days.