proposed coal ship anchorages off gabriola

[triplenickel]

Well as China and India will not be ramping down on coal and in fact will be ramping up. We need to still make a living in Canada. Selling coal is one of the things we do along with selling wood, oil, minerals. Etc..

Forget China and India look no further than Europe. They're bringing in more coal fired power than renewable as their experiments in renewables have actually made them go backwards.

I wish we could power the planet on ideals and good intentions. Anyone try to put them in their gas tank or heat their home, or wash their clothes, or feed your kids fresh veggies in the winter that were grown with them?

And don't you dare try to build a hydro electric project with a meaningful capacity that will actually meet our needs for more than a few years in this province. We'll plug our Tesla's into the good intentions plug not the electric one.

 

[searun]

Also people don't get the big picture about where the basics for their lifestyles come from and have zero willingness to go without. Can't have it both ways, plain and simple.

Thanks, you nailed it. For me this is simply a not in my back yard issue. A whole bunch of scare mongering, and I'm willing to bet my house on the fact that everyone who posted on this forum is GUILTY of buying products shipped here on vessels that dropped anchor on our coast. The entire economy of BC would come to a stand still without shipping and ports. To me it is completely disingenuous to suggest that by stopping a plan to anchor vessels is somehow a move to stop global warming and China's use of coal. Those vessels are coming. If not here, they will anchor some place else.

Our economy relies heavily on the economic spin offs from the trade that flows through our ports. I think folks need to step back and look at the big picture...wait a second, I heard that aimed at me....hmmm

 

[GLG]

Well as China and India will not be ramping down on coal and in fact will be ramping up. We need to still make a living in Canada. Selling coal is one of the things we do along with selling wood, oil, minerals. Etc..

OK I get your argument. Two wrongs make a right. Got it... thanks for the moral compass.

Oh and what about China. Didn't they peak in the thermal coal consumption last year and where are they heading now.

http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/...ts/China/1/China's INDC - on 30 June 2015.pdf

I think the developing country of India is going in the same direction. So the question is why can't a developed country like Canada do the same thing. Whats stopping us?

 

[GLG]

Soon there will be jobs galore in renewables. On calm days we can all line up and blow on wind mills and on cloudy days we can clean solar panels. It'll be perfect all the raw materials can come from someone else's back yard if we play our cards right. Then we can listen to the people that complain about a lack of jobs road block any opportunities that comes along. All the while they happily consume consume consume the products produced in third world countries at third world environmental standards. Let's shut down all mining, forestry, and energy in this country. That should what produce a .005% drop in global emissions considering Canada's total is less than 2%? Oh wait no it won't because y'all still want to consume so a third world producer will make up the slack. Don't forget the reasons these industries exist, it's to supply YOU with what you're not willing to go without. Blaming big corps is denial pure and simple, everyone in opposition on here owns a piece.

An economy is based on what we can do better, faster, cheaper than other nations. In Canada that's resources. Forget a knowledge economy there's more phd's in China than there are Canadians.

Yes China is going to beat us to clean energy then sell the technology back to us because we are too afraid to lead.

I always enjoy your pixie dust argument. Cracks me up every time. No one is suggesting we stop the world and get off the fossil fuel treadmill. We need a plan and a commitment to ramp down. Yes we are at 2% of the worlds GHG but is that the reason not to do our fair share? Is that the moral argument you want stand on?

 

[GLG]

If only there were a cleaner cheap alternative that is actually CURRENTLY VIABLE and abundant in BC that could provide thousands of good paying jobs and bring a global net reduction at the same time. If only there were.....

Edit; we can all have an impact on the demand side but despite what people say and rally against most don't/won't. That coal might make a pitstop in China but it'll come full circle and end up back here as the crap we gobble up from Walmart and the like.

Your right we should be selling NG to Alberta so they can get off the thermal coal and burn the cleaner NG till they build out clean energy renewable.

Your right about the crap we buy and every family needs to take a cold hard look at there spending. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[triplenickel]

Yes China is going to beat us to clean energy then sell the technology back to us because we are too afraid to lead.

I always enjoy your pixie dust argument. Cracks me up every time. No one is suggesting we stop the world and get off the fossil fuel treadmill. We need a plan and a commitment to ramp down. Yes we are at 2% of the worlds GHG but is that the reason not to do our fair share? Is that the moral argument you want stand on?

On your first paragraph I'll take that wager, you're dreaming. How's it working out for Germany and the UK? They're years "ahead" of us or China and on a go forward basis are bringing more coal power online than renewable as they've already been down the path and realize we're not there yet. As for China selling it back to us they already are in a sense, we can't compete with their manufacturing so that's where cheap, (yet still ineffective) solar comes from and we don't have the raws for the rare earth magnets so it comes from them. Remember that dirty little secret of the renewable revolution? How clean do you reckon the panels made in China really are? Don't be naive.

On your second paragraph you seem to be kinda contradicting yourself. The way I read your posts you're pretty blunt about your wish to get off the treadmill, or else you'd be supporting LNG over thermal coal unless there's some other CURRENTLY VIABLE alternative you know of that I don't. You know to ween us. It's also exactly what people just like you are saying by fighting every proposal of every development regardless of industry. You can't consume without production it can't go both ways but you seem to want to ignore that fact and oppose everything while enjoying the spoils.

Cool let's sell more NG to Alberta, ready to build the pipelines or LNG facilities? Are you ready to support them or just continued talk out of both sides of your mouth?

What if these ships were bringing neodymium to us, would it be ok to anchor them?

I always enjoy your lack of willingness to face reality and desire to run the world on ideals. I wish we could do it tomorrow too it's ridiculously obvious that it would be better but that's not reality, it won't happen in our lifetimes so let's make the best of the interim. How does it make any sense to produce these resources that are going to be used no matter what anywhere but here? Environmentally or economically? I know what you're gonna say because we've already been down this road. You'll say China and the like need to worry about their own mess because we have commitments to keep. In other words it doesn't matter what the net global effect is as long as we can brag at the G7 country club. That's the moral ground I'll stand on, ours may go up a bit, we'll still be a fart in the wind and we'll have a net positive global effect, are you taking the contrary as you have in the past as mentioned above?

Are we gonna go in this circle again? Lol you win How's your fishing been this year?

 

[finaddict]

If only there were a cleaner cheap alternative that is actually CURRENTLY VIABLE and abundant in BC that could provide thousands of good paying jobs and bring a global net reduction at the same time. If only there were.....

Hydroelectric power???? LNG?????

 

[triplenickel]

Hydroelectric power???? LNG?????

Oh no way, ya don't say! Surely the public would support it wouldn't they? Lol sorry the sarcasm isn't directed at you.

 

[bigdogeh]

why not do something like this? surely better than burying it or sending it out to the ocean for the neighbours in the US....
we have state of the art pollution control systems/ scrubbers, particulate systems now. it's just a matter of enforcing their use and using them. and why are we dumping raw sewage into the ocean this day and age? (victoria). There's energy to be had from waste but most corporations seem to want to quickly sell (at bargain basement prices) and use up our non renewable resources for short term gain. we all realize were all at fault and share the blame, but we need to be working towards using less non-renewables and using more greener renewables imo.... that's the direction I think we should be trying to go.

http://midwestenergynews.com/2013/10/17/is-burning-garbage-green-in-sweden-theres-little-debate/

 

[triplenickel]

There's this too.

http://www.edmonton.ca/programs_services/garbage_waste/biofuels-facility.aspx

http://www.capitalpower.com/generationportfolio/merchantcommercial/Pages/CloverBarLandfillGas.aspx

Dirty albertans.

 

[bigdogeh]

There's this too.

http://www.edmonton.ca/programs_services/garbage_waste/biofuels-facility.aspx

http://www.capitalpower.com/generationportfolio/merchantcommercial/Pages/CloverBarLandfillGas.aspx


Dirty albertans.

that's awesome! I wish I was seeing more of this in our country and cities. I would think it would be possible in smaller cities as well as the larger cities. I hope the politicians and industry take notice and it continues to catch on. it just seems to make sense.

 

[GLG]

On your first paragraph I'll take that wager, you're dreaming. How's it working out for Germany and the UK? They're years "ahead" of us or China and on a go forward basis are bringing more coal power online than renewable as they've already been down the path and realize we're not there yet. As for China selling it back to us they already are in a sense, we can't compete with their manufacturing so that's where cheap, (yet still ineffective) solar comes from and we don't have the raws for the rare earth magnets so it comes from them. Remember that dirty little secret of the renewable revolution? How clean do you reckon the panels made in China really are? Don't be naive.

I can't speak to Germany or UK as I'm not fully aware of there thermal coal consumption and their plan to a low carbon future. I'll let the citizens in those countries find their path to reducing their CO2 and as far as I can tell they seem to be on the right path. I will concern myself with what our country / province / cities / individuals are doing. Before we point fingers at other countries we need to clean up our house.
http://www.iea.org/media/statistics/topics/emissions/CO2_Emissions_Overview.pdf


What dirty little solar panel secret are you referring to. Got a source?

My argument is to follow this. Below are snips for the report and the whole thing is worth a read. My comments are in blue.
http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/The_Way_forward.pdf

Energy is critical to global prosperity, as it underpins economic growth, social development, and poverty reduction. It has fuelled global economic development since the industrial revolution, and countries aspire to further inclusive economic growth. However, with more than 80% of global energy sourced from fossil fuels, growing energy demand has led to increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Today’s challenge is to decouple economic growth and social development from increasing emissions. This requires action by central and local governments, publicly and privately owned businesses, communities, and individuals.

........

Challenges to this transition include locked-in infrastructure, short-term market conditions favouring coal, fossil fuel subsidies, and inadequate carbon pricing. Solutions lie in greater efficiency and switching to cleaner energy sources. This document sets out five priorities for immediate action: interventions with short-term impact, a focus on electricity emissions, longsighted investment and innovation, and mobilising other goals in service of decarbonisation.

(locking in new coal, LNG, bitumen are what they are talking about)
.........

Long-term impacts of short-term actions When considering what package of short-term measures to deploy, countries should also keep in mind consistency with longer-term decarbonisation. For example,switching to natural gas power generation can reduce emissions from coal, but by 2030 power generation must be moving beyond natural gas to a greater share of zerocarbon options. New investments in gas infrastructure should take this into account.
(notice it does not say BC should create a whole new industry called LNG with a life cycle of 30 years)

.......

Electricity supply must shift to lower-carbon options.More efficient coal can assist this goal in the short term.Natural gas will be part of the mix for longer, but the average emissions intensity of power generation must fall to below that of natural gas generation before 2030. This fall is propelled primarily by new investments in zerocarbon sources: between 2020 and 2030, the average emissions intensity of new power generation in the 2DSis only 52 gCO2/kWh.

(again this says NG not LNG and notice the dates that we need to faze them out)

.........

To propel power sector decarbonisation forward, strong policies with wide reach are required. Carbon pricing(including carbon taxes and emissions trading) is critical, and is being used increasingly in developed and developing countries. A challenge will be to achieve the high carbon price levels needed to shift plant investment and retirement decisions. Regulation (such as fleetwide or individual technology performance standards) can also be a useful, pragmatic policy tool.

(Strong policy is needed so why is it that BC LNG industry get's a free pass on the carbon tax?)

...........

Advances in the availability and cost of low-carbon technologies will underpin long-term decarbonisation. For example, photovoltaic modules have reduced dramatically in cost from USD 4/W in 2008 to USD 0.8/Win 2012, and are expected to further halve by 2030. At this time, however, most technologies are not developing at a rate consistent with the 2°C goal. Increased support for technology development is required.

(Yes we need cheaper solar but as all things in technology the price falls over time. We have seen that with computers and cell phones)

..............

One degree celsius of warming can be expected to reduce available electricity generation capacity in the summer by up to 19% (Europe) and 16% (the United States) by the 2040s. Transmission and distribution networks’ efficiency is also compromised by a rise in temperature. Higher temperatures will either require additional peak generation and transmission capacity or greater demand-side response at peak times.

(That can't be good .... site c would would not help us much as we may think)

............

Reduced water availability and increased competition for water resources are major threats to the energy sector n the coming years. Water is needed, in particular, for thermal power plant cooling and hydropower generation. A changing climate can also reduce the availability of fuels for electricity generation.

(Maybe we should be looking at way to create energy that does not need water like solar / wind and the bonus part is the fuel is free)

............

The answer to our fossil fuel problems are not more fossil fuels. Locking us in with new fossil fuel projects is exactly what the fossil fuel industry wants from us. Why do you think there is such a push for these projects.

 

[terrin]

Oh no way, ya don't say! Surely the public would support it wouldn't they? Lol sorry the sarcasm isn't directed at you.

LTAP: Watch for Libs to rein in run-of-river spoilers

Michael Smyth
The Province
August 2, 2009

Last week's regulatory smackdown of Premier Gordon Campbell's clean-energy plan threw the government for a loop, not to mention the private power producers set to pump billions of dollars into B.C.'s green energy revolution.

The B.C. Utilities Commission shocked the industry and its government backers by declaring B.C. Hydro's long-term plan for private run-of-river hydro and wind projects to be "not in the public interest" and told the Crown corporation to come back with a new plan by next year.

I doubt the government will wait that long, only to risk being sent packing by the independent regulators again. That's why I'm told the government is considering all its options, including a possible cabinet override of the BCUC decision.

This would be a risky political move for Campbell, who bragged about empowering the utility commission to function at arm's length from government.

But this is the same government that last week launched massive reviews of supposedly independent B.C. Ferries and TransLink, too. Get set for more meddling.

A key concern for government is the potential flight of private-power investment capital from B.C. after years of courting the industry. The power companies took a beating on the stock market last week and I'm told the investment capitalists that bankroll them have put the government on notice: Fix this or our money goes elsewhere.

With nearly $7 billion set to be poured into independent power projects, it's no wonder Campbell and company are considering drastic action. But, ironically, the upstart utilities commission may have thrown the private power companies a lifeline by including a bizarre directive in its decision: That B.C. Hydro ramp up the generating capacity of its Cold War-era Burrard Thermal power plant to an astonishing 5,000 gigawatts a year.

That would make the 1962-built Port Moody dinosaur the biggest single belcher of greenhouse gases, pollution and smog in the entire province -- at the very time air quality and climate change are among the planet's top environmental challenges.

It would also require the clunking plant to rev its engines at a higher rate than ever before.

To put that 5,000 gigawatts into perspective, the last time Burrard Thermal broke the 2,000-gigawatt threshold was 2002 -- the same year a hydrogen tank exploded and blew a five-metre-wide hole in a wall and started a fire. B.C. Hydro was lucky no one was killed.

The government had slated the aging, inefficient plant to cut back production and eventually shut down. Cranking it up in the other direction would pump two million tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere along with smog and pollution -- an insane proposition when B.C. has vast untapped stores of clean, zero-emission energy.

In other words, the commission has given the government the perfect excuse to bring the hammer down. Watch for Campbell to once again don his green cape and play environmental superman -- and pull the choke chain on his "independent" utility watchdog.

© Copyright (c) The Province It's kind of strange how when the Liberals wanted to pump up the argument for Privately Run Run of River Projects at Publicly Guaranteed Rates of Return on their investment the Natural Gas Burrard thermal Power Plant thats been in place in case of a one off low water year for hydro electric dams Natural Gas was a beltcher of greenhouse gases, pollution and smog and yet now Burning Natural Gas, to cool Natural Gas, turning it into LNG so we can ship it to China is the Greenest thing on earth. You don't need LNG to send Natural Gas to Alberta. Ever wonder why our Hydro rates are up and going higher Run of River and 1 Billion Dollars worth of Digital meters. Funny thing is it still doesn't bring power back to your house in a wind storm any quicker but thats progress i guess.

 

[terrin]

Forget China and India look no further than Europe. They're bringing in more coal fired power than renewable as their experiments in renewables have actually made them go backwards.

I wish we could power the planet on ideals and good intentions. Anyone try to put them in their gas tank or heat their home, or wash their clothes, or feed your kids fresh veggies in the winter that were grown with them?

And don't you dare try to build a hydro electric project with a meaningful capacity that will actually meet our needs for more than a few years in this province. We'll plug our Tesla's into the good intentions plug not the electric one.

That Hydro electric project is all about cheap(almost free) power for the Multinational LNG Producers to ship to China. There is currently no Business case for site C. Once again the poor public taxpayer will pay and pay dearly for it.

 

[lazylump]

I think this Tesla power wall is an awesome renewable energy solution.

http://www.teslamotors.com/en_CA/POWERWALL#

 

[Tugcapitan]

Hey how about them anchorages? Haha
Anyone one come up with a reasonable argument against yet?
I'm no expert on the viablitlity of one particular spot over another for regular anchorage use, but I trust we have the right people in place deciding where these ships are safest.
Don't you?

 

[GLG]

On your second paragraph you seem to be kinda contradicting yourself. The way I read your posts you're pretty blunt about your wish to get off the treadmill, or else you'd be supporting LNG over thermal coal unless there's some other CURRENTLY VIABLE alternative you know of that I don't. You know to ween us. It's also exactly what people just like you are saying by fighting every proposal of every development regardless of industry. You can't consume without production it can't go both ways but you seem to want to ignore that fact and oppose everything while enjoying the spoils.

Yes if only there was a way to get cheap solar panel from China.... wait now what happened last winter when the Harper Government imposed an import tariff on those cheap panels? They set it between 30% and 300% mostly at the 300% so a system that cost 10K now costs 30K (worst case). Yes we know we need clean energy but if a guy like me want's it, seems someone is going to make damn sure I pay for it .... or best we continue to use fossil fuel like good customers of the fossil fuel industry.
http://www.pv-tech.org/news/canada_impose_import_duties_on_chinese_pv_imports


No I'm not against every project but I think we need to look at ever project that has a chance of increasing our GHGs. We already have a pipeline form BC to Alberta with NG. It goes to Fort Mac so there is potential there. I don't see it as a choice between Coal and LNG. They are both bad it's just one is worse then the other and should be avoided at all costs. To give me choice is an old debating trick that's not going to work.


Solar panel dirty secret huh ... I did some checking.

The positive impact during the panel use or energy generation phase is the emissions-free energy that displaces carbon intensive energy generation from sources such as coal and natural gas. The positive impacts of that displacement far outweigh the negative impacts of the production phase of the life cycle of silicon solar panels.
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/OIPP/docs/solar_panel_lifecycle.pdf

Tell us, when does a coal or LNG power plant go to zero GHG emissions? Answer is, when it closes down. A solar panel goes to zero emissions between 1 and 5 years and can last between 25 and 30 years.

I'll have to look for wind and see what that is but I suspect it is close to the same.

 

[GLG]

Hey how about them anchorages? Haha
Anyone one come up with a reasonable argument against yet?
I'm no expert on the viablitlity of one particular spot over another for regular anchorage use, but I trust we have the right people in place deciding where these ships are safest.
Don't you?

Yes I found an argument for them.... Media reports say they are for expansion of Coal shipments. After reading what some members have posted I'm starting to believe that may not be the whole story. Sure were are going to need to park a ship that may be for coal but not four extra spots. You just don't park four empty coal ships waiting to get loaded from one expansion project. That makes no sense. It's still does not change my mind on thermal coal shipments but clearly there maybe other motivations behind this. I have looked for other source for the needs for these new spots but have not been able to find anything yet. Nothing new there as things like that come very slowly for our government. I would be interested in any other information as to why we need them from official sources. Mind you I take that with a grain of salt also, experience shows that they can be misleading.

 

[triplenickel]

Here's some info from 2 countries that are years ahead of us. Why go down this same path? The last 2 links are the dirty little secret I was referring to, if it looks like this now imagine when there's enough neodymium produced to have a meaningful impact. And rest assured NIMBYISM (not meant to be derogatory just the easiest way to convey the idea) will ensure it's produced in some third world backwater not domestically.


http://theenergycollective.com/robe...ck-germany-does-not-get-half-its-energy-solar

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...ower-chaos-should-be-a-warning-to-the-UK.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...elied-upon-to-deliver-UK-energy-security.html


http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/05/clean-energys-dirty-little-secret/307377/

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/aug/07/china-rare-earth-village-pollution

You're correct the planet doesn't need more fossil fuels it needs better fossil fuels. It doesn't take much imagination to figure out that on a cold dark Canadian winter day when demand is at it's highest solar output will be at it's lowest and we simply don't have sufficient storage capacity to get us by. Same for wind are you ready to wager your home heating in January or fridge and freezer contents on it when the sun doesn't shine for weeks? Even if we built enough renewable that actually had sufficient output, not capacity we still need backup for the significant off time. Starting that kind of power generation up everyday isn't like flicking a light switch so these backup plants chug along inefficiently and expensively 24/7. Pick your poison for that source, kinda makes a good case for NG doesn't it? Please read those links they're full of facts and actual numbers.

Why do you think there is such a push for these projects.

Because society demands the energy and products they deliver. Do you think the big corps produce these things you rally against for fun? Wanna stop production, then stop consumption. 60% of emissions from a barrel of oil come from consumption not production. The earths population grows by 170 people every minute and they all want the same things you take for granted. Shouldn't they be able to take their friends up to Browns Bay for a day of sockeye fishing?

They set it between 30% and 300% mostly at the 300% so a system that cost 10K now costs 30K (worst case).

Interesting, I hadn't heard about this it almost sounds like a protectionist policy, where's the domestic suppliers that should be stepping up? Surely they can compete with a 300% tariff added can't they? Or can they? Perhaps there's a reason Canada focuses on what it can compete at which is resource extraction.

(That can't be good .... site c would would not help us much as we may think)

Very much like if we were to eliminate all big industry from Canada, it won't help as much as people think. It would actually put the planet back a step because (as I've said 100 times but you seem unwilling to accept or don't actually care) someone else will pick up the slack and it won't be done better than here. Like you've said before "who cares let them clean up their own mess, we've got commitments." That really doesn't sound like something someone who cares about the planet would say. it sounds like someone with a different agenda. Where do you want the petroleum base products for the plastics you use everyday to come from? How about the met coal, the natural gas (not just for fuel you use something made from it EVERYDAY), the copper etc? Ready to go without?

(Strong policy is needed so why is it that BC LNG industry get's a free pass on the carbon tax?)

To stimulate investment as there's competition in this space. I think we should give the solar industry a break from carbon tax too, surely with that and a 300% tariff they could compete. If these renewable technologies were actually viable I'd be all over giving them the same breaks as the energy sector gets but since they aren't it would be a waste of time and money and once you factored in unreliable output and backup needs we'd go backwards pretty fast. When you consider the last sentence don't just think operationally, think of how much material goes into the infrastructure for such minimal returns.

(Maybe we should be looking at way to create energy that does not need water like solar / wind and the bonus part is the fuel is free)

Do some research on countries that are ahead of us if you don't like my sources above. Don't get tricked by the words capacity and output as you dig into it.

Solar panel dirty secret huh ... I did some checking.

I didn't say anything about solar, I said raws for rare earth magnets. There could potentially be tons of jobs in solar when you figure out how many it's gonna take to power the world and the fact they don't last but 25 years, so there's always that upside.

At this time, however, most technologies are not developing at a rate consistent with the 2°C goal.

OK so we agree we're not there yet, what do you suggest we do in the meantime?

Ugh, we're doing it again Gilbert!

 

[triplenickel]

I think this Tesla power wall is an awesome renewable energy solution.

http://www.teslamotors.com/en_CA/POWERWALL#

It's a lithium ion battery, hardly the revolution we need it's still copper, aluminum, and lithium. If Canada had lithium would the public support it's production? The good news for NIMBY's is Chile, Bolivia and Argentina have 70% of the deposits so we won't have to worry here. Search "salar de uyuni" in Google images, seems like a good spot to mine, lets put one in every home.


http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/the-path-to-lithium-batteries-friend-or-foe.html