Energy myths about greenhouse gas (GHG)

1. Horsepower: This in itself is a minor factor. How fast a vehicle gets up to speed is less important than the mass of the vehicle, its velocity, and its aerodynamic drag. Indeed, the more relevant factors are the size of the radiator and how often one must change the brake pads, since these are where the wasted energy goes. Much of the energy put in, can (theoretically) be recovered with regenerative braking except for friction and aerodynamic drag losses which go to heating the surrounding air a tiny bit (talk about your global warming).

2. Electricity: In Ontario, since about 50 % is nuclear and 25 % is hydro, our electricity is about 75 % carbon free, it is our cleanest form of energy! We should be using more of it, in proportion to dirtier energies, not less of it. Note: CO2 by province for electricity generation (tonnes per capita): ON 2.83, AB 16.5, & PQ 0.22, noting Quebec's vast hydro resources. Graphically (with newer population data):

2.1. Replacing an incandescent bulb with a compact fluorescent (CFL) may actually produce more greenhouse gases since in winter at least the heat would be replaced by a furnace which is typically 100 % carbon fueled and often at low efficiency (need efficient GSHP to be effective). This is meant as a comment on how inefficient our heating systems are. The cross-over point is about 65 %, i.e., below that efficiency, Ontario's electricity system produces less GHG for heating.

2.2. The same applies for many other promotions to reduce electricity by replacing electric heaters (space or hot water) with (fossil) carbon fueled units; it's like throwing out the baby with the bathwater, partly because the potential for CCS (see below) is reduced and partly because the alternative may be less efficient.

2.3. Real gains come from systems like a ground source heat pump (GSHP) that, rather than burning carbon fuels to produce heat at maybe a 95 % efficiency, use electricity to MOVE existing heat from (or to for air conditioning/cooling) the earth at about 400 % efficiency. Ideally such systems would include hot water and refrigeration lines. And fireplaces, while promoted as being sustainable, produce far more pollution (such as mercury) than any car allowed on the road, have no hope for CCS, are inefficient, not even cogeneration, ...

3. Cost: Energy is not free so increasing the efficiency of it's usage can save money with the side benefit of lowered GHG emissions without lifestyle changes in most cases. There already exist cost effective methods to reduce energy usage (which just happens to reduce greenhouse gases to the extent that that the energy is from carbon fuels), it is just a matter of the payback time. CFLs and modern refrigerators can payback the investment in just a few years, GSHPs in about 20 years (about 5 %, a better than from GICs, and this might be significantly improved with community based wells), but current solar panels have a payback of about 50 years and so are still too expensive and rare (world-wide production capacity of solar panels is only about 1 GW per year while demand means construction of new coal plants at about 20 GW per year in China, 17 GW in India, ...). Hybrid vehicles exist, plug-in hybrids would allow us to operate much of the time on electricity, but pure electrics would be much less complex and therefore should be less expensive, ... well, at least in my mind. Note: revised data suggests GSHPs can payback in as little as 5 years!

Aside: The real objective then is to move towards electricity as the common energy supply but clean up those sources that are dirty. This means all electric (battery) vehicles (hydrogen is effectively a battery since there are no sources of it and hydrogen is not even a very good battery at that, being inefficient and difficult to store on board) with the added complexity of a hybrid only for special applications. The vast potential for geothermal we know from the MIT study which points out that the oil/gas drilling industry has developed the deep drilling technology that allows enhanced geothermal to be a practical source for an enormous amount of electric power. For example, California already produces more geothermal electricity than solar and wind combined; the potential is worldwide and estimated to be about 100 GW for Canada alone. Reluctantly, this could be taken up by the current oil industry with its drilling expertise (info tells us that drilling to 12 Km costs about 15 M$) since it is their business to make money by drilling for energy (and nothing is likely to happen in this world without the oil companies being able to profit from it, sigh, so this is a way of getting them on side). Hydro power from QC, NL, and MB would be helpful to Ontario. Indeed a hydrogen pipeline might be one way to transport it since, while hydrogen is not easy to store, it is much easier to store than electricity at stationary sites and could help harness the intermittent power from wind. Current hydrogen conversion technology is too inefficient for this to be practical now. The ultimate is certainly solar since the sun produces far far more energy than we can even conceive of using (I for example have a south roof angled at about 45 degrees and large enough to produce at about 6400 watts (quantity 80 of 80 watt each panels from Canadian Tire at $700 each), more than I use) but, again, solar is currently insanely expensive for Ontario and rare compared to alternatives. Work at the U of T has suggested quantum dot technology could harness 30 % of the solar energy. Nuclear fission could be phased out while nuclear fusion is still a future possibility.

4. Coal: We need to clean up that dirty portion of our electricity that is mostly from coal. Let's look at 3 options for Ontario's coal plants:

4.1. Modify or build plants to burn fossil coal but implement carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), this would be GHG neutral. This includes so-called "clean coal" technology: a pilot syn-gas plant is operating (in Italy?).

4.2. Modify or build plants to burn biofuel (wood waste pellets, crop waste, or similar) instead. The "sustainable" option, would also be GHG neutral.

4.3. Burn biofuel AND implement CCS. This would be GHG negative!!! Note the distinction here between carbon fuels: bio vs fossil. Ultimately, I think that we need to put the carbon back where it came from (mostly old oil wells or in the from of biochar which can enhance soils).

Carbon tax wisdom

Carbon taxes, if any, must be selective:

1. A tax on gasoline punishes consumers because ... automakers refuse to make electric vehicles while, when California threatened with it's zero emissions legislation, six of the automakers showed that they could make plug-in battery electrics.

2. A tax on electricity punishes us because ... Ontario's premier broke his promise to close the coal plants when geothermal is a carbon free power source with the potential to cleanly supply all of Ontario's electricity since the oil industry has already developed the drilling technology to go deep enough.

3. A tax on heating fuel could encourage homeowners to convert to ground source heat pump systems that are four times as efficient as the best carbon fueled furnaces and, while it may take 20 years to pay off, that is a better rate of return than most GICs. Yes this is one where a carbon tax is useful, since there is a zero emission alternative, yet Ontario exempts home heating fuels from even the PST.

End bites: Ideally, we would eliminate all chimneys/exhaust pipes (there is no hope of capturing the carbon dioxide from millions of pipes). ONLY burn biofuels, and in centralized plants with co-generation and total capture of all output, including CCS. Fossil fuels would be saved for plastic and chemical feedstocks. Oil companies could drill for and run geothermal plants. No carbon fuel would be burned just to produce heat. Electricity would be used to MOVE heat. GSHPs would also include refrigeration and hot water sidelines. Vehicles would be electric (battery) with possible overhead connectors on highways ("electric highway") and possible hybrids with biofuels for special applications in remote areas. The electricity would come from clean sources: geothermal (mostly?), intermittent solar (as it becomes cheaper) & wind (both buffered by batteries in electric vehicles), hydro (including kinetic), and biofuels with CCS, eventually phasing out nuclear, at least fission. No major technology advances and no major lifestyle changes with changes that mostly pay for themselves in energy costs saved.

Numbers: Canada's current production of greenhouse gases (in CO2 equivalents) is about 800 Mt per year (estimated from 2004 data in 2006 Report). This is comprised of about 200 Mt from vehicles + 80 heating + 130 Mt from electricity (mostly coal) + 160 Mt from fossil industry + 230 Mt from other. My program could cut the 1st two to 0 (electric vehicles and GSHP), reverse 3rd (bio with CCS), reduce 4th (less used), but little change in 5th (some small drop from other efficiencies), resulting in about 200 Mt or a 75 % reduction. There would not be enough time to meet the Kyoto 2012 goal of a 35 % reduction from present levels (or 6 % below 1990 levels) but should easily meet Kyoto 2020. A shift from fission to geothermal would be carbon/GHG neutral. Note that forestry is not included in Report totals, but 1 t of dry wood 'holds' about 1.5 t CO2.

Misc.: I think that the Canadian government's recent decision to rebate fuel efficient vehicles and surcharge high gas consumption vehicles (feebates) is good since it should stimulate manufacturers to make more efficient ones, electrics even?

Footnote: One issue is the Portlands Energy Centre, a 550 MW, 730 M$, gas fired, peak electricity plant being built in the portlands area of Toronto. One proposed alternative (not relevant if the above suggestions for coal and geothermal are used instead) is: A Toyota Prius has a motor-generator with a capacity of 50 KW so that 11,000 of them would provide the same peak capacity at a cost of ($35,000 each) 385 M$, HALF that of the current PEC being built. In reality, the financiers could subsidize people to buy the vehicles at a cost of $5,000 to $10,000 each with an added cost of about $5,000 per vehicle to modify with a safe plug and software changes. An additional cost would be required to set up the infrastructure to take the plugs in selected parking lots downtown at a cost of (I can only guess) 200 M$. The new total is still about half the current PEC. An added benefit is that, while the vehicles will be parked downtown during office hours when peak power is most required and producing that power using a relatively dirty fuel, the major time of the vehicles will be spent in the transportation mode with a net reduction in fuel usage by offsetting otherwise lower efficiency non-hybrids.

New (2008 Jul 08): A recent report from the World Bank reveals that food based biofuels have pushed up the price of food by 75 per cent. (Link) Another report, from Moody's Investors Service, has put the price of new nuclear plants at 7 $/W. (Link) Geothermal is looking better all the time. Wikipedia notes 75 such projects in 12 different U. S. states as of May 2007.

New (2008 May 17): The following chart requires some explanation.

New: The "evil" Nanticoke coal fired power plant, oft said to be the biggest point source of pollution on the continent, was recently demoted to (on a world scale) 65th place due to running only as a peak power provider. (CARMA)

New: The Ontario Energy Board is proposing that (many?) new nuclear plants be built at a cost of 2.9 $/W but data show that the most recent plant in Ontario (Darlington, at 14 G$ for 3.5 GW, before inflation) cost about 5 $/W.

New: The Economist seems to be also coming to the conclusion that direct government regulation may be better than carbon taxes. (Trading thin air & Irrational incandescence)

New: Update on progress on drilling for geothermal power. (Link)
And news from the Australian government and company.

New: "... carbon dioxide emissions produced from hydrogen extraction are almost three times as high as those from conventional fuels." (Link)

New: Premier wants ZENN electric cars in Ontario. (Link) This also notes of a study that electric cars, even when that electricity comes from dirty coal, result in fewer greenhouse gases than gasoline powered cars.

New: "Water vapour is invisible (until it condenses as clouds), but few understand that it is the most important greenhouse gas." -- Dr. Roberta Bondar (Link)

New: Biochar proposed to sequester carbon from biofuels: pyrolyze fuel and mix the carbon into soil where it seems to stay. (Link)

New: Toronto to put PlugIn hybrids on the road; so why can't the big auto companies? (Link)