The Great Oil Sands Journey Part 5

Idling cars are the devil’s greenhouse

Imagine, for a moment, that we lived in an ideal world. Apples and avocados don’t turn brown an hour after being sliced. You always get perfect radio reception, even in tunnels, and commercials tend to be of lower volume than the television show you’re watching.

Wheels to Winds
Part five of a five-part series

Let’s imagine how the combustion engine in your car would work in this world. First, you have your gasoline which contains your hydrogen and carbon. Then you have the air, which is full of oxygen. The oxygen in the air would convert all the hydrogen in the fuel into drinking water and all the carbon in the fuel into carbon dioxide. Let’s say that whenever these reactions occurred, a natural byproduct would be music. And all the nitrogen in the air would watch with vague interest, but opt not to get involved.

Now for a reality check. In the real world, the hydrocarbons in the fuel react with the nitrogen in the air as well. The end result after the oxygen and nitrogen comingle with the hydrocarbons is the following:

• Nitrogen oxides (NOx) which are precursors to ozone and components of acid rain.
• Hydrocarbons which are basically any of the fuel that doesn’t burn completely. Smog results when hydrocarbons react with nitrogen oxides and sunlight.
• Carbon Monoxide which is similar to carbon dioxide, except there is only one oxygen atom (CO) instead of two (CO2). This occurs when there is incomplete combustion, which happens periodically, and the fuel is only partially oxidized. As you may know, carbon monoxide can be lethal as it diminishes the amount of oxygen in the blood when inhaled. That extra oxygen molecule is very important when it comes to that whole breathing and staying alive thing that we always have to worry about.
• Carbon Dioxide which is a greenhouse gas, a leading cause of climate change.
• Water which is, unfortunately, no more than a fine, warm mist at this point, so you can’t really drink it.

Aside from exhaust emissions described above, keep in mind that there are also emissions that result from refueling your car and simple fuel evaporation that occurs on hot days, causing the gasoline to slowly evaporate. Needless to say, this is certainly not ideal.

Now, let’s take a giant step back and look at how many greenhouse gases result right from the beginning, when the bitumen is extracted from the oil sands, to the end, when the fuel is burned in your car. A common description of this more thorough way of looking at oil sands emissions is ‘from wells to wheels’. People have been known to say that oil sands greenhouse gas emissions are three to four times higher than conventional crude oil. This figure does not take into account the full lifecycle of oil sands, from extraction and processing through to combustion of its refined products.

According to recent research on full life-cycle emissions released by IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA), oil sands emissions are five to 15 per cent higher than conventional crude oil like Saudi light, or California heavy oil. The reason for the major difference in these averages is because 70 to 80 per cent of all greenhouse gas emissions from all refined products are emitted by us when we drive.

Of course, people are reluctant to take responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions. But once you realize that you have a pretty big piece of the emissions pie, there are things you can do to make it smaller, such as:

• Walk or bike. You don’t need to drive to get to your friend’s house, especially if they live next door.
• Buy a hybrid or fuel efficient car. Sure, they come with their criticisms, but they’re a step, or rather a drive in the right direction.
• Safe hypermiling like lessening cargo, not breaking or accelerating suddenly and not idling. Remember the old saying: idling cars are the devil’s greenhouse… er… something like that…
• Avoid wrong turns by preplanning trips or using a GPS system. Not only do you help the environment but you get to be not lost, which is always nice.

Of course, that doesn’t mean industry shouldn’t do its part to reduce emissions either. Even five per cent composes a significant amount of emissions. The general consensus seems to be that reducing emissions in the future will rely heavily on technology, technology, technology.

David Layzell from the Institute for Sustainable Energy, Environment and Economy says that future oil sands technologies will likely fall into one or more of the following four categories:

1. Mechanical – focuses on finding more creative ways to efficiently separate oil from sand (Layzell hints that there are already proprietary projects in the pipes).
2. Thermal – focuses on how to extract more bitumen using less steam, and therefore less energy to create the steam. Another approach in this category is using cleaner energy to power the in situ process. Gasification of petroleum coke, a byproduct of many oil sands operations, is also an interesting alternative since the CO₂ stream that is created can be captured and stored relatively easily, thereby eliminating atmospheric emissions.
3. Chemical – has two approaches, mainly in the in situ category of oil sands extraction. One is using solvents instead of energy intensive steam to lessen the viscosity of the bitumen so it can flow to the surface.  The other using nanocatalysts that transform the oil into a lighter crude before it is pumped to the surface.
4. Biological – This approach uses bacteria to metabolize the oil and convert it into methane, leaving behind toxic sulphur and nitrogen compounds. The methane can then be extracted in a way similar to less carbon-heavy natural gas.

For an idea of what the oil sands industry is doing right now to reduce its impact on the environment, visit www.canadasoilsands.ca. Click on the section ‘what we’re doing’ to get an idea of the initiatives industry is voluntarily undertaking to reduce its impact on air, land, and water, as well as its effect on nearby communities. The website also provides a forum for Canadians to discuss oil sands issues.

Finally, as we all line up to accept our ownership of this unsavory emissions pie, let’s take a quick look at what the government is doing. The Government of Canada has its Turning the Corner Plan which aims to reduce greenhouse gases by 20 per cent of 2006 levels by 2020. Also, Environment Minister Jim Prentice recently announced that Canada would be implementing tough emissions laws to match those imposed in Washington under the vigorous American Clean Energy and Security Act. In addition to that, both the Government of Canada and the Alberta government have been known to foot some of the bill for research and development of new, emissions-reducing technologies such as carbon capture and storage.

Of course, the solutions discussed above for consumers, industry and government are not an exhaustive list. Saving the planet seems to be, at times, a daunting challenge that leaves many people wondering if their actions make a difference. But don’t let that take the wind out of your sails. You’ve seen the power of the ripple effect in the ‘waves to wells’ story and the power of individual perseverance and innovation in the ‘wells to wheels’ story. The’ wheels to winds’ story is about you and me, and the how small decisions can have huge affects on the environment, the economy and the world around us.

This is as much a story about how we power our lives, as it is one about the power we each have as individuals. We determine the ending.

Toughing out climate change commitments in tough times

Have you heard? The economy is bad. So it’s time to tighten the belt, cinch the purse strings, stretch our dollars. Except wait—what about climate change? Sure it sounds good when we’re fat and happy, but what happens once the economy turns sour? Many countries are choosing to commit to the environment despite tough economic times. 

Australia has the highest per capita levels of greenhouse gas emissions in the developed world. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has set some lofty targets, planning to cut emissions by between 5% and 15% by 2020. He is also requiring industrial polluters to bid for government licences to emit carbon, which would cover 75% of Australia’s emissions.

27 countries of the European Union recently committed to reducing carbon emissions by 20% by 2020, compared to 1990 levels. 

China has set targets to improve its energy efficiency, Brazil is tackling deforestation and Mexico has set new emissions goals.

Scotland recently raised a pint to Mother Nature by proposing an 80% reduction in the country’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and addressing burgeoning shipping and aviation emissions.

In the US, emissions have actually increased by 17% since 1990. President Obama has committed to reducing them to 1990 levels by the year 2020. 

Developing countries such as Nigeria and South Africa are also making efforts to cut their countries’ emissions by 20-30% over the next 10 years. 

If leadership is about having vision and prospering in times of adversity, there are many countries which are blazing a new emissions reduction trail.

Opportunity to get it right

The Conservatives in Ottawa are more determined than ever to engage the United States in pursuing coordinated energy and environmental policies which could evolve into contributing much-needed energy stability in what Environment Minister Jim Prentice calls “a very volatile world.”

He set out his priorities in a speech to the Canadian Council of Chief Executives in Toronto the morning of Barack Obama’s inauguration as the 44th U.S. President, welcoming much-anticipated American re-engagement in multilateral climate change negotiations.

Prentice reiterated the minority administration’s desire for “an effective multilateral climate change agreement for the years ahead.” The key elements would be joint action on greenhouse gas emissions and a transition to “a larger and cleaner supply of both fuel and power.” It wouldn’t be easy because various “actors and interests” influence how much progress each federal government can achieve.

He said the Conservatives’ target of a 20% reduction in emissions from 2006 levels by 2020 is “ambitious but achievable” unlike the previous Liberal government’s unfulfilled Kyoto Protocol commitments.

As expected, the starting point remains an intensity-based performance standard rather than what Prentice called “a so-called hard cap-and-trade regime” but the latter would eventually become the order of the day as Canada gained more experience and as the international policy environment evolved.

“A cap-and-trade system will be insufficient alone to get the job done,” Prentice said. “We will need some other common instruments – like a shared target for low carbon power generation, a common bio-fuel mandate, common fuel efficiency standards, and potentially a common low carbon transportation fuel standard for North America, a standard that would seek to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels into the future, based on emissions measured over the complete lifecycle of various fuels from production site to the tailpipe.”

The current economic downturn underscored the importance of avoiding anything which would exacerbate matters. “We will seek to ensure that federal policies are coordinated,” he said. “We want federal climate change regulations to work in tandem with tax, technology, tariff and other policies to promote timely domestic investment and offset weak U.S. demand.” He also stressed the importance of coordinated and harmonized federal-provincial policies.

A bilateral deal also meant a concerted move to reduce North American dependence on “foreign” oil. “Energy insecurity is the large and growing gorilla in the room,” Prentice said, noting that whereas the U.S. imported only 10% of its crude oil just four decades ago, it now imported 60% and faced the prospect of that rising to 80% by 2020.

“Smart grids and conservation, renewable fuels and power . . . are all important, but in an `80/20′ world, they will represent only the `20′, at least until the 2020s. It is the other 80% we have to worry about. In Europe, the `80%’ of energy insecurity means oil and natural gas. And here in North America, with our substantial natural gas reserves, the `80′ means oil.”

Prentice underscored Canada’s role in the “American energy equation” as the main U.S. source of crude, natural gas and electricity and as “an indispensable supplier” to the northern tier states.

“We’re not just a supplier; we’re a partner. . . . We have the capacity to play an even larger role in the North American energy solution. We’re the only nation in the world outside the Persian Gulf region with substantial proven oil reserves; we’re the best way to get Alaskan gas to southern markets; and we’re a country with substantial untapped natural gas deposits and clean hydropower potential – an obvious way for many border states to reduce their reliance on coal-fired power.”

How Canadian provinces measure up on greenhouse gas emissions

Canada, as a signatory nation to the Kyoto Protocol, is obligated to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 6 per cent below 1990 levels.  This is supposed to have happened by, well, now: from 2008 – 2012.  No one is pretending that’s possible.  

What’s the dilemma?  Canada signed Kyoto as a single entity, but the reality is when it comes to energy and emissions, the federal government only has so much authority.  Energy is famously, indeed even notoriously, within the purview of provincial governments.

If Canada as a whole is to even approach its Kyoto targets, all ten provinces must chart their own courses.  Can it be done?  It can in Quebec, where David Suzuki, among others, note with admiration and glee that the province has achieved a fourth consecutive year of reducing emissions.  

In this, Quebec is by far Canada’s leader.  Via measures as broad as carbon and petroleum taxes, a green fund, expanded public transit, even cutting highway speed limits, the province is showing Kyoto targets are possible.  

The rest?  Laggards?  

No other provinces have so clear a vision as Quebec’s Climate Change Action Plan, enacted in 2006. Take Alberta, for example. Emissions have increased by 36 per cent since 1990, moving the province ahead of big, industrial Ontario for the “lead” in provincial emissions.  Not per capita, mind you, but overall.  

Alberta, for its part, says it’s impossible to compare apples to oranges. It shouldn’t be held accountable for producing the energy the rest of the world (and country) eagerly consumes. Whether that’s true or not is beside the point.  

Quebec has demonstrated that real progress can be made in a short timeframe. Only two years since implementing its comprehensive (and rather ambitious) action plan, Quebec has seen measurable results.

Carbon auditing for vehicles the first step to reducing vehicle emissions

When it comes to moving towards a low-carbon economy, to borrow a line from Former US President Bill Clinton, it’s the cars, stupid. 

Vehicle transportation is the single-largest contributor of excess carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses.  So any serious effort to counteract climate change must tackle the problem of emissions from vehicles. But how do you know what you are facing if you can’t quantify the problem? 

That’s where Zerofootprint and Skymeter Corporation come in. The two companies have entered a partnership to measure vehicular greenhouse gas emissions.  Toronto-based Skymeter specializes in data-services and billing-delivery metering services and Zerofootprint, as their name implies, facilitates reducing our collective footprint.

Their initial applications focus on highly accurate measurement of corporate and individual carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles, combining GPS and carbon-measurement tools.  The purpose of their tools is to quantify the vehicle carbon emission problem, the key to devising intelligent solutions.

One such solution is a simple one: encourage drivers to drive less. Skymeter proposes an incentive-based tolling system that offers drivers incentives to reduce driving. Drivers would be rewarded for reducing their emissions and energy consumption in the form of tax credits instead of punished with punitive taxes and user fees.

Victoria Regional Transit uses a similar method of changing driving habits. It promotes sustainable transportation with a monthly bus pass reward program. Monthly pass holders are permitted to claim a non-refundable tax credit on their income tax return for using a sustainable mode of transport.

It goes to show you that sometimes, the carrot works better than the stick.

RVing a greener travel choice?

The next time you get frustrated trying to pass yet another slow-moving RV, remind yourself they may just be more environmentally responsible than you. 

A new study reveals that RVing is the travel mode of choice for eco-friendliness. The study compared the carbon dioxide emissions of a family of four traveling by RV and compared it to the emissions generated by other modes of transport, including driving your car or flying to your destination.

Conducted by an independent research firm, the study used a carbon calculator methodology developed by Conservation International. The study compared carbon dioxide emissions from vacations of 3, 7, 10 and 14 days in length. The study even factored in different makes and models of cars and RV for a fair comparison. 

How can it possibly be that an RV which has the aerodynamic characteristics of a cardboard box possibly produce less greenhouse gas than your average car? Well, no. It doesn’t. But when you take a vacation, that’s not a fair comparison, unless you drive there and sleep in your back seat. If that’s the case, bravo.

Air travel, as most probably understand, generates more carbon dioxide for the same trip than RV travel.  But hotel stays aren’t exactly carbon-neutral, either.  That’s not to say you shouldn’t stay in hotels, just that like anything else, they have a footprint.  Heating, air conditioning, laundry, restaurants, ice makers, room service; it all counts.

It seems when it comes to vacations, RV’s are number one. That’s the index finger, not the middle one.

Off we go, into the wild green yonder

Though air travel began with a very light carbon footprint, it’s since become a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions, not to mention becoming vulnerable to fuel prices . Air travel doesn’t travel light, and the weight its begun to carry concerns both its airlines and customers.

Pitching lower fuel costs and higher efficiency speaks to two of the industry’s largest concerns. It isn’t surprising, then, that Bombardier’s recent announcement of its CSeries passenger planes is specifically geared toward addressing the cost of fuel and the impact of that fuel’s use. Designed to carry between 110 and 130 passengers in each plane, the line boasts 20 per cent less fuel use, and emits up to 20 per cent less CO2 and up to 50 per cent less nitrogen oxide (NO2).

But as the National Post’s finance section reported, fewer orders prove that the plane’s new features don’t necessarily make for an easy sell. Certainly, upgrades like “blended winglets” have been able to improve the efficiency of existing planes, and given the $46.7 million price tag of a new CSeries plane, airlines are understandably motivated to maintain their existing fleet first.

Buying the newer planes wouldn’t be the only way for an airline to nod to environmental concerns. Carbon offsets, now available for purchase withan airline’s tickets, are also designed to assuage the emissions released by air travel. Just another way to avoid leaving a carbon footprint in the sky.

Fuel price fallout

Here at Flow, we’re as aware as anyone that fuel prices drive much more than the cost of fuelling up your car. We’ve mentioned these rising prices again, and again, and again, in noting that, simply: as fuel prices continue to rise (and rise, and rise), something else happens as a result.

The bottom line is that rising fuel prices have spillover consequences across the board, from increased prices for consumer goods to reduced demand for gas-guzzling vehicles. But while some of these rising costs are intuitive, others are either more subtle or, at least, more unexpected. Here, then, are three consequences of rising gas prices that you might not have considered.

(As for the rest, we’ll keep you posted. After all, in a world fuelled by, well, fuel, there’s never any shortage of energy news.)

Fewer fatalities
According to researchers at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, “For every 10 per cent rise in gas prices, fatalities are reduced by 2.3 percent.” And as if those numbers weren’t impressive enough, reductions are even higher among teen drivers.

With the report’s authors, Drs. Michael Morrisey David Grabowski, tracing the lowered fatalities to lower vehicle use and speed (a measure that’s long been known to both improve engine efficiency), the findings prove that there’s something to be said for drivers being forced to use their dangerous vehicles less. And while drivers aren’t likely to cheer higher prices for the fuel they use, it’s difficult to argue with results.

More online visitors
One of the tips often supplied as a counter to the emission-producing problem of international travel is carbon offsetting, but a more basic method is simply avoiding travel altogether. With improved telecommunications technologies, most would-be travelers can simply videoconference their way into a face-to-face meeting, or gather all the information they need online.

For students, as cited in the linked New York Times article above, online classes have long been a way to avoid any number of unpleasant physical realities like overcrowded classrooms and that troublesome Delta House. Delta House!!

In Canada, online schools like Athabasca University boast benefits like flexible schedules and space (i.e, wherever you’d like to be). And with fuel prices making a drive to school prohibitive, the attraction of those benefits is bound to draw more students from brick and mortar to bandwidth and mouse.

Fewer suburbanites

Urban sprawl continues to shuttle millions of Canadians back and forth between their suburban homes and downtown workplaces , resulting in homes being directly responsible for increasing vehicle use. But as that vehicle use becomes more and more costly, the real value of those homes begins to decline even more precipitously than it already is.

For some critics , this is just one of the many secondary benefits of increasing fuel prices — increasing the real costs of things whose cost was otherwise hidden. Now suburbanites, in addition to finding a home with the requisite square footage and master-bedroom-accessible-bathroom, have to consider the cost of their daily commute as well.

Feeling gassy?

You’ve heard this: We are all hothouse tomatoes, trapped under invisible, gaseous glass and if we don’t stay green we’re going to go overripe faster than you can say ketchup. What’s more, you’re probably aware that the invisible gases fuelling our environmental woes are being tackled with emissions standards, cap-and-trade carbon credits and carbon taxes.

So, since you know all of that, a few simple questions: Do you really know what a greenhouse gas is?

Can you name one? Two? Six? Do you know when and where you produce them?

Well, if you can’t, have no fear; Flow is here to give you the basic whats and wheres of greenhouse gases. After all, they’re as tricky as substances can be. For one, they’re all invisible.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the four primary greenhouse gases under the Kyoto Protocol are carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, and ozone (144KB PDF), with each of them assigned a numeric “Global Warming Potential” (GWT) value. The remaining three, all man-made, are sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons.

Below are a few examples of where your actions may have produced some of these tomato-shriveling gases.

Carbon dioxide (CO2)
Where: Your soda
Car exhaust, feedlots, industrial pollution, fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide is the dominant greenhouse gas for a reason—it’s in almost everything we burn, and it’s what we exhale. It’s so common, and because it’s impractical to suggest we all stop breathing, for now let’s concentrate on the C02 that makes those little fizzing bubbles in our Mountain Dew.

Nitrous oxide (N2O)
Where: Your steak
Before your sirloin was medium-rare, it was so rare that it walked, mooed and produced nitrogen-rich manure. Vegetarians aren’t off the hook either, especially if the plants they eat were grown with nitrous fertilizers. If there’s a plus side to animal waste, though, it’s that it doesn’t need to be wasted.

Methane (CH4)
Where: Your trash
Along with CO2, methane is one of the two gases found in “landfill gas”, which smells as appetizing as it sounds. But new energy techniques are trapping this noxious gas and turning it into viable fuel that, when burned, leaves only CO2.

Ozone (O3)
Where: Your car
In fairness to your car, ozone pollution isn’t all its fault. But when its exhaust comes in contact with so-called “volatile organic compounds” in the air, ground-level ozone is created. And while Canadians may be committed to stopping the depletion of the ozone layer, those added ozone gases aren’t helping.

Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)
Where: Your magic
As far as direct contributions, you’re probably safe here. Short of the electrical industry, which uses the gas to insulate high voltage circuit breakers, the closest you’re likely to come to releasing sulfur hexafluoride is when you decide to wow your friends with your incredibly low voice and magical powers. But while you might not be a burgeoning magician, you certainly do use the magic of electricity every day.

Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
Where: Your cold air
What would summer be without the comforting cold of an air conditioner? Well, for starters, it would see a lot fewer HFCs, which are used in air conditioning units. And before you rush off for your backup popsicle, just remember that your freezer is chock full of HFCs too.

Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
Where: Your foil
If you’re a fencer and read “foil” with horror, relax: This is the kind of foil that wraps up leftovers, not competitions. PFCs are released during the process of turning alumina into aluminum, a metal you’ve used if you’ve ever had brisket left over to wrap up or used virtually any other modern metal convenience.

Seven greenhouse gases and seven familiar ways we generate them in our daily lives. Their effects are varied, but in addition to their eponymous greenhouse effect, they’re also known to increase the acidity of our oceans. And since the gases clearly aren’t just generated in the limited fields of soda, magic or food wrappings, it’s important to understand exactly how and where they are produced, and how the industries responsible for generating greenhouse gases are dealing with them.

It’s always better to understand the ways your energy use affects the world you live, because even if you’re behind on your reading there’s always time to “ketchup”.

Hot air and emission-free cars

When Honda announced the launch of its prototype hydrogen car, the FCX Clarity, the revving noise of Internet traffic was practically deafening.

Short of an auto section’s front page, a product launch isn’t necessarily the kind of story that grabs much attention (unless, for example, someone leaks your release schedule for the next five years). But with the added green sheen of an alternative power source, suddenly the launch of another car is news worth reading.

And to richen the pot, Honda also attached a trend even more tried-and-true than environmentalism: celebrity obsession.

Though the $100,000 vehicles aren’t technically for sale, Honda’s first five lessees include film producer Ron Yerxa, actress Jamie Lee Curtis and her husband, mockumentarian Christopher Guest. Shelling out $600 a month for the privilege, these celebrities are hardly the first to attach themselves publicly to a vehicle, joining luminaries like Mr. Universe cum Mr. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

In fact, as a recent article in the Los Angeles Times shows, low or zero-emission cars are already de rigueur fashion symbols for LA’s celebrity set, with stars clamouring for the chance to own hybrid and alternative fuel vehicles. But the same article showcases one of the pitfalls of placing image-driven celebs at the forefront of green technologies: the addictive allure of the bright and shiny.

Paul Haggis, for example, is noted to have four Toyota Priuses. While this means that the writer/director of Crash owns four fuel efficient and low-emission vehicles, it also means that he has quadrupled his contribution to the construction process, which isn’t emission free, to say nothing of his desire for still more vehicles.

Honda itself acknowledges that future lessees won’t all be celebrities, with some contracts available to the common folk. Which is good, because if the rich and famous can have as many motorized fashion accessories as they could take who knows how many would have been left?

Next Page »