Sunday, February 22, 2015

A Major Harvard Climate Change Denier Has Been Found to Be Dripping in Corporate Cash | Science.Mic

A Major Harvard Climate Change Denier Has Been Found to Be Dripping in Corporate Cash

By Tom McKay February 22, 2015

How's a million bucks sound to sell out the planet?

Environmental group Greenpeace revealed that one of the world's most prominent climate change skeptics has been quietly cashing huge checks from the fossil fuel industry.

Documents obtained by Greenpeace and released to the media implicate Wei-Hock Soon, a Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics aerospace engineer, of essentially marketing his services as a climate change skeptic to large energy companies involved in extracting and selling fossil fuels.

It's really, really bad. The New York Times reports the documents show Soon accepted about $1.2 million from fossil fuel and energy companies over the past decade while simultaneously failing to disclose those conflicts of interest on at least 11 papers published since 2008. "At least eight" of those times, Soon appeared to have violated ethics guidelines established by the journals in which they appeared.

Even more damning, the documents reveal that Soon referred to his climate change research as "deliverables" for the companies giving him money. As ThinkProgress notes, the scientist has pitched a variety of less credible explanations of climate change, including that the 20th century wasn't as warm as scientists say it was, and that the sun, not unprecedented burning of fossil fuels, is responsible for global warming. Goddard Institute for Space Studies director Gavin A. Schmidt told the New York Times that the work Soon did on solar output was "almost pointless," since it explains less than 10% of global temperature change. The paper also reported that he has "little formal training in climatology."

Soon's willingness to buck the near-unanimous scientific consensus on climate change has made him a regular fixture in congressional hearings, conservative talk shows and the climate-skeptic community. He's touted by the right-wing Heartland Institute as a "leading authority on the relationship between solar phenomena and global climate" and "one of the world's most respected and influential voices for climate realism." His work has been citedby deniers in Congress like Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who thinks the Bible proves climate change is a hoax.

For example, here's the good doctor throwing shade at climate scientists on Fox News:

Source: YouTube

Soon's skepticism also apparently made him popular with wealthy special interests who are more interested in protecting their bottom line than promoting good science. According to the Guardian, Soon accepted $410,000 from Southern Co., $335,000 from ExxonMobil, $274,000 from the American Petroleum Institute and $230,000 from the Charles G. Koch Foundation, as well as $324,000 from anonymous donors using a trust linked to right-wing causes.

The scale of this ethical breach can't be understated. It's like if Soon had accepted money from Big Tobacco to claim smoking doesn't cause cancer, or cashed a check from Coca-Cola to suppress evidence that soda causes cavities in kids. The New York Times notes that while he has previously admitted to accepting energy industry funding, he's reacted with anger or downplayed its significance to his scientific work.

These revelations are especially disconcerting considering that while Soon has spent the past decade making a small fortune promoting an industry-friendly imaginary world where burning titanic amounts of fossil fuels has a negligible impact on the environment, the real world has been heating up — and quick.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that the world needs to cut 70% of its greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050 (and 100% by 2100) to prevent a rise in global temperatures of 2 degrees Celsius or more, which could "increase the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems." A recent study by University College London researchers found that avoiding a catastrophic temperature increase of 5 degrees Celsius by the end of the century likely depends on whether humans abstain from burning the world's fossil fuel reserves.

Soon's already fringe research is now irreparably tainted, but the real damage isn't to his reputation. The hurt will be felt by future generations that have to live under a world vandalized by reckless disregard for the real effects of fossil fuels, and people like him who helped energy companies maintain the charade that we had nothing to worry about.

LIKE US ON FACEBOOK:

Tom McKay

Tom is a Live News columnist for Mic, where he writes about politics, media, and technology.

Source: http://mic.com/articles/111060/a-major-harvard-climate-change-denier-has-been-found-to-be-dripping-in-corporate-cash

Η πώληση αερίου από την Κύπρο προς την Αίγυπτο διαμορφώνει νέα δεδομένα | mignatiou.com

Η πώληση αερίου από την Κύπρο προς την Αίγυπτο διαμορφώνει νέα δεδομένα

February 22, 2015

Του Κώστα Βενιζέλου

Η συμφωνία της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας με την Αίγυπτο, που υπογράφηκε την περασμένη Δευτέρα στο Κάιρο, αποτελεί ένα βήμα προς την υλοποίηση των ενεργειακών σχεδιασμών της Λευκωσίας. Ταυτόχρονα συνιστά και ένα τετελεσμένο στο παζλ της μεγάλης εικόνας που αφορά και την αξιοποίηση των κυπριακών υδρογονανθράκων αλλά και την ενίσχυση των συνεργασιών με τις γειτονικές χώρες (τριμερή Ελλάδας- Κύπρου και Αιγύπτου και η δεύτερη με το Ισραήλ).

Η Άγκυρα δεν έχει ακόμη αντιδράσει στη συμφωνία της Κύπρου να πωλήσει φυσικό αέριο στην Αίγυπτο. Δεν συνηθίζει η Τουρκία να αφήνει εξελίξεις που αφορούν τους κυπριακούς υδρογονάνθρακες να προχωρούν χωρίς να αντιδρά ή να παρεμβαίνει. Τούτο έπραξε στο παρελθόν και αναμένεται αργά ή γρήγορα να αντιδράσει και η καθυστέρηση να πράξει τούτο, δεν οφείλεται στα αντανακλαστικά της, αλλά ενδεχομένως σε θέματα τακτικής. Διπλωματικές πηγές σημείωναν πως η προσοχή της Λευκωσίας από τη Δευτέρα και εντεύθεν ήταν στραμμένη στο ερευνητικό σκάφος «Μπαρμπαρός», το οποίο βρίσκεται σε αγκυροβόλιο έξω από το λιμάνι της κατεχόμενης Αμμοχώστου. Την ίδια ώρα παρακολουθούνται όλες οι κινήσεις της τουρκικής πλευράς.

Ο Κύπριος υπουργός Ενέργειας, Γιώργος Λακκοτρύπης, όπως είναι γνωστό, πραγματοποίησε την περασμένη Δευτέρα ταξίδι αστραπή στο Κάιρο, το οποίο ανακοινώθηκε, για ευνόητους λόγους, αμέσως μετά την υπογραφή της συμφωνίας.

Το συμβόλαιο αυτό ανοίγει το δρόμο για εμπορική αξιοποίηση του φυσικού αερίου, ανκαι αυτό είναι ακόμη νωρίς. Θα χρειαστεί η ολοκλήρωση των συζητήσεων επί της συμφωνίας για να καθοριστούν οι όροι που θα αφορούν και την εμπορική διάσταση του. Τους επόμενους δυο μήνες θα κατατεθεί τεχνοοικονομική μελέτη των επιλογών για αυτές τις εξαγωγές. Η συζήτηση με το Κάιρο επικεντρώνεται στις υφιστάμενες υποδομές τερματικού υγροποίησης της Αιγύπτου δηλαδή στο Ίντκου και στην Νταμιέτα, που θα δέχονται το αέριο από το τεμάχιο 12 της κυπριακής ΑΟΖ. Η διαδικασία για την συμπλήρωση των λεπτομερειών του συμβολαίου/μνημονίου αναμένεται ότι θα ολοκληρωθεί σε έξι μήνες. Απ΄εκεί και πέρα θα κατατεθεί το σχέδιο ανάπτυξης από την NOBLE και η ανακήρυξη του κοιτάσματος ως εμπορεύσιμου. Είναι σαφές πως η εξέλιξη αυτή, αν και αέριο από το τεμάχιο Αφροδίτη προς την Αίγυπτο με αγωγούς δεν αναμένεται γίνει πριν το 2018-2020, θεωρείται ένα σημαντικό βήμα, αλλά και τετελεσμένο, το οποίο ανακοινώθηκε μετά που έχει γίνει και όχι πριν με τυμπανοκρουσίες ( δεν συνηθίζει η Λευκωσία τούτο). Είναι προφανές πως το κεφάλαιο φυσικό αέριο εισέρχεται στη διαδικασία της ρευστοποίησης και των δεσμεύσεων με συμφωνίες με τρίτους. Είναι σαφές πως τους επόμενους μήνες όταν θα υπάρξει και η οριστικοποίηση των διαφόρων ρυθμίσεων που επιβάλλονται για να προχωρήσει η συμφωνία αυτή, το τοπίο θα είναι πιο ξεκάθαρο. Αν και η κίνηση αυτή θεωρείται από μόνη της ένα γεγονός και ένα τετελεσμένο. Για την Τουρκία η εξέλιξη αυτή είναι διπλό το κτύπημα: Και από τη Λευκωσία αλλά και από το Κάιρο και δεν αναμένεται η Άγκυρα, αργά ή γρήγορα, να παρακάμψει την εξέλιξη αυτή.

Βολεύει όλους το «διάλλειμα» της ιταλικής ΕΝΙ

Η ΑΓΚΥΡΑ θεωρεί ως κλειδί για τις παραπέρα εξελίξεις στο Κυπριακό αλλά και στο πεδίο της ενέργειας τη διακοπή των ερευνών στα τεμάχια εντός της κυπριακής Αποκλειστικής Οικονομικής Ζώνης (ΑΟΖ) από την ιταλική εταιρεία ΕΝΙ. Ήδη έγινε γνωστό ότι η ΕΝΙ θα προχωρήσει σε «τεχνικό διάλειμμα» ενώ η NAVTEX που έχει εκδώσει η Κυπριακή Δημοκρατία για τις έρευνες της εταιρείας λήγει στις 31 Μαρτίου.

Η Τουρκία συνδέει αυτή τη στιγμή την ανανέωση της δικής της NAVTEX με την αναστολή, όπως θα την παρουσιάσει, των ερευνών της ΕΝΙ στην κυπριακή ΑΟΖ. Υπενθυμίζεται συναφώς ότι η τουρκική NAVTEX λήγει στις 6 Απριλίου. Όπως συναφώς πληροφορούμαστε, το «διάλειμμα» της ΕΝΙ είναι για τρεις μήνες καθώς θα πρέπει το γεωτρύπανο να εξασφαλίσει άδεια ασφαλείας και αναμένεται στο τέλος Μαρτίου θα κατευθυνθεί, κατά πάσα πιθανότητα, προς το λιμάνι της Μασσαλίας. Μέχρι τότε θα έχει ολοκληρωθεί η γεώτρηση στην «Αμαθούσα» και στην περίπτωση που θα ανακαλυφθούν κοιτάσματα θα επανέλθει για την επιβεβαιωτική.

Είναι σαφές πως στην περίπτωση που αρχές Απριλίου σταματήσουν οι έρευνες τότε αναμένεται ότι η Τουρκία δεν θα ανανεώσει την οδηγία προς ναυτιλλόμενους και όπως ανέφεραν ενημερωμένες πηγές θα ανοίξει το δρόμος για τους εν δυνάμει μεσολαβητές για να στήσουν ένα νέο σκηνικό συνομιλιών για το Κυπριακό. Με βάση αυτό το σενάριο οι συνομιλίες μπορούν να αρχίσουν μετά τις λεγόμενες προεδρικές «εκλογές» στα κατεχόμενα, που χρονικά τοποθετούνται στις 19 Απριλίου. Το ίδιο σενάριο, που θα προχωρήσει υπό την αίρεση των προθέσεων του Ερντογάν, ο οποίος θεωρείται αστάθμητος παράγοντας, λαμβάνει υπόψη και το γεγονός ότι στην Τουρκία θα διεξαχθούν εκλογές στις 7 Ιουνίου.

Η Άγκυρα στέλνει Ναμί στο Κατάρ

Ο ΤΟΥΡΚΟΣ υπουργός Εξωτερικών, Μεβλούτ Τσαβούσογλου, διαμήνυσε πως η Άγκυρα αντιτίθεται «στις μονομερείς έρευνες γεώτρησης», παραπέμποντας στην Κυπριακή Δημοκρατία. Πρόσθεσε δε πως είχαν καταθέσει «εποικοδομητικές και ειλικρινείς προτάσεις γι αυτό το θέμα» για να επαναλάβει πως «θα είμαστε κοντά στην `ΤΔΒΚ` και τον Τ/κ ‘’λαό’’ για να προστατεύσουμε τα δίκαια των Τουρκοκυπρίων». Οι αναφορές αυτές του Τσαβούσογλου έγιναν μετά από συνάντηση που είχε την περασμένη Παρασκευή με τον λεγόμενο υπουργό Εξωτερικών του ψευδοκράτους, Οζντίλ Ναμί. Όπως ανέφερε ο Οζντίλ Ναμί θα συναντηθεί με τον ΓΓ του Οργανισμού Ισλαμικής Συνεργασίας (ΟΙΣ) και θα πραγματοποιήσει «σημαντικές επαφές στο Κατάρ». Ανέφερε ότι επιθυμία τους είναι όπως το ψευδοκράτος συμμετάσχει στην ΟΙΣ και τις άλλες οργανώσεις και πως γι αυτό το θέμα γίνονται εργασίες σε υψηλό επίπεδο.

Source: http://mignatiou.com/2015/02/i-polisi-aeriou-apo-tin-kipro-pros-tin-egipto-diamorfoni-nea-dedomena/

Thursday, February 19, 2015

Israel presents Noble, Delek with monopoly compromise | Interfax

Israel presents Noble, Delek with monopoly compromise

By Staff reporter
Posted 19 February 2015 11:50 GMT

David Gilo, the director general of Israel’s Antitrust Authority, has presented Delek Energy and Noble Energy with a compromise solution to break up their monopoly over the domestic market, financial daily Globes reported on Wednesday.

Under the proposal, Delek will sell its holdings in the Tamar, Karish and Tanin fields, and Isramco will be the sole marketer of the gas from the Tamar reservoir to Israeli customers, the newspaper said.

Leviathan gas will be sold under a separate marketing model under which Noble, Delek and Ratio Oil Exploration can keep their stakes in the field, but each will market their own gas to local customers.

Source: http://interfaxenergy.com/gasdaily/article/15320/israel-presents-noble-delek-with-monopoly-compromise

Monday, February 16, 2015

ENERGY: Cyprus and Egypt sign offshore gas and pipeline MoU | Financial Mirror

ENERGY: Cyprus and Egypt sign offshore gas and pipeline MoU

16 February, 2015

The Cypriot Minister of Energy and the Egyptian Minister of Petroleum have a signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) in Cairo for both the upstream and downstream exploitation of output from the ‘Aphrodite’ offshore gasfield and possible liquefaction for export using existing plants in Egypt.

Following on their meeting in Nicosia on November 25, the Minister of Petroleum and Mineral Resources of Egypt, Sherif Ismail and the Minister of Energy, Commerce, Industry and Tourism of Cyprus, Yiorgos Lakkotrypis, signed, in the presence of the Egyptian Prime Minister Ibrahim Mahlab, a memorandum for cooperation in the field of oil and gas, an official announcement said on Monday.

The announcement said that the MoU will, inter alia, facilitate the cooperation between the two countries in the development and exploitation of the Cypriot ‘Aphrodite’ gas field in block 12 of the Cyprus Exclusive Economic Zone, utilising gas infrastructure existing in Egypt for the mutual benefit of the two countries.

In particular, the MoU authorises the Egyptian Natural Gas Holding Company (EGAS) and the Cyprus Hydrocarbons Company (CHC) Ltd to examine technical solutions for transporting natural gas, through a direct marine pipeline, from the Aphrodite field, operated by U.S. Noble Energy and its Israeli partners Delek Petroleum and Avner Drilling, to Egypt.

“This will optimise the use of the gas infrastructure and achieve an added value for both Cyprus and Egypt. This undertaking will be carried out in cooperation with concerned stakeholders in upstream and liquefied natural gas (LNG) activities. The aim is to conclude an agreement within six months from the date of the signature of this memorandum of understanding,” the announcement said.

This MoU is a significant step towards strengthening cooperation between Egypt and Cyprus in the field of oil and gas, which will further deepen the friendly relations between the two countries.

Cyprus had initially signed an MoU with Noble and its Israeli partners to consider setting up a liquefaction plant on the island, but the estimated reserve quantities of about 3.5 trillion cubic feet would not be sufficient to justify such an output unit. Instead of a land-based LNG plant, Noble has also pondered about a floating LNG (FLNG) unit within its licensed Block 12 of the Cyprus EEZ.

Source: http://www.financialmirror.com/news-details.php?nid=33843

CYPRUS, EGYPT, ISRAEL AND GREECE LOOK TO IMPROVE REGIONAL SECURITY | Natural Gas Europe

mailPrint

CYPRUS, EGYPT, ISRAEL AND GREECE LOOK TO IMPROVE REGIONAL SECURITY

Cyprus plans joint military exercises with Israel, Greece and Egypt to improve regional security. Cyprus has suffered from the violation of its Exclusive Economic Zone by a Turkish seismic vessel sent by the Turks to conduct exploratory searches in Cyprus’ maritime zone. The NAVTEX announcing the offensive has led to the disruption of the UN peace talks aimed at reunifying the island of Cyprus divided since 1974.

Hopes that the natural gas finds off the island’s coast will be a catalyst for a settlement are now at their lowest. Turkish Cypriots advance that gas explorations initiated by the government of the Republic of Cyprus will only benefit the Greek two-third of the island, despite repeated statements by Cypriot officials that all revenues generated from gas production will benefit the totality of the island.

Texas-based Noble Energy made a significant discovery in Cyprus’ EEZ in 2011. The Aphrodite field, estimated at 3.6 to 6 Tcf, has not yet reached production stage as the government studies the optimal way of getting the hydrocarbon to market. Despite its complete dependence on gas imports to satisfy domestic demand, Cyprus’ need for the hydrocarbon is negligible and most of the gas found in its waters will be allocated for exports.

An original plan to build an onshore LNG terminal in the Vassilikos coastal site of Cyprus has been put on hold until further exploratory successes are made to justify the commercial viability of the endeavour. Cyprus is currently looking to develop its Aphrodite field with the possibility of exporting the gas to Egypt. Finding a customer would encourage the costs involved in the development of the field, domestic demand alone being too small to justify the investment.

Cyprus has also been considering importing gas from neighbouring Israel as an interim solution until the island reaches self-sufficiency. However, regulatory hurdles in Israel have threatened to delay production of the 21 Tcf Leviathan beyond the original 2018 deadline. A dispute between Noble Energy and Delek, and the Israeli competition regulator has yet to be resolved. The outcome is unclear but possible scenarios including breaking the Delek-Noble consortium and forcing the partners to sell their stakes in the field.

Meanwhile, Cyprus continues exploratory activities in its waters. Despite TOTAL’s (temporary?) withdrawal from the island, the ENI/KOGAS consortium pursues its search in Block 9 of the island’s EEZ. Successful discoveries would encourage further investments and widen the island’s options in terms of export possibilities. Tensions with Turkey will need to be reduced but it is far from certain that positive progress in the energy field will improve the security situation of the Eastern Mediterranean.

Karen Ayat is an analyst and Associate Partner at Natural Gas Europe focused on energy geopolitics. She reads International Relations and Contemporary War at King's College London focusing on Natural Resources and Conflict. She holds an LLM in Commercial Law from City University London and a Bachelor of Laws from Université Saint Joseph in Beirut. Email Karen karen@minoils.com Follow her on Twitter: @karenayat

SOURCE

Tuesday, February 10, 2015

A Biofuel Debate: Will Cutting Trees Cut Carbon? | New York Times

A Biofuel Debate: Will Cutting Trees Cut Carbon?

FEB. 10, 2015

Sugar cane is a source of biofuel. The hunt for biomass could change the world’s land use.CreditJan Sochor/Latincontent/Getty Images

Eduardo Porter

ECONOMIC SCENE

Does combating climate change require burning the world’s forests and crops for fuel?

It certainly looks that way, judging from the aggressive mandates governments around the globe have set to incorporate bioenergy into their transportation fuels in the hope of limiting the world’s overwhelming dependence on gasoline and diesel to move people and goods.

While biofuels account for only about 2.5 percent today, the European Union expects renewable energy — mostly biofuels — to account for 10 percent of its transportation fuel by 2020. In the United States, the biofuel goal is about 12 percent by early in the next decade. The International Energy Agency envisions using biofuels to supply as much of 27 percent of the world’s transportation needs by midcentury.

The reasons for such ambitions are clear: It is nearly impossible under current technology to run cars, trucks, ships and jet planes on energy generated from wind or sun.

What is more, bioenergy is now being drafted to make electricity. Last November, officials at the Environmental Protection Agency issued a policy memo widely seen as encouraging the harvest of forests to produce power by treating it as a carbon-free source.

Used cooking oil can be collected from restaurants, to be recycled into biofuels. CreditJustin Sullivan/Getty Images

There is a big problem with this strategy, though. An economist would say that it ignores the “opportunity costs” of deploying vegetation as a source of energy. Others call it double counting.

“Dedicating land to bioenergy always comes at a cost because that land cannot produce plants for other purposes,” said Timothy Searchinger, a researcher at Princeton and the World Resources Institute and a co-writer of a recent report that calls for a rollback of crops dedicated to biofuels.

In a nutshell, says Mr. Searchinger, the energy from forests and fields is not, in fact, carbon-free.

The argument for aggressive deployment of bioenergy assumes that it is carbon-neutral because plants pull CO₂back from the air when they grow, offsetting the carbon emitted from burning them as fuel. But diverting a cornfield or a forest to produce energy requires not using it to make food or, just as important, to store carbon.

“Burning biomass instead of fossil fuels does not reduce the carbon emitted by power plants,” a group of 78 scientists wrote on Monday to Gina McCarthy, the E.P.A.’s director, warning against the new power plant policy. “Burning biomass, such as trees, that would otherwise continue to absorb and store carbon comes at the expense of reduced carbon storage.”

If the critics are right, the hunt for biomass on a large scale could vastly change the world’s land use, food supply and ecosystems while helping little to prevent climate change.

The argument for caution has so far mostly fallen on deaf ears. The reason is that policy makers see little choice.

Last year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change rendered its latest assessment of scientists’ collective understanding of how to slow the pace of global warming. Riddled with the usual uncertainties of science, it seemed pretty certain of one thing: Doing it without biofuels would be much harder.

Absent a big increase in bioenergy supplies, the climate change panel’s analysis reported, it would cost about two-thirds more, on average, to prevent the earth’s temperature from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels, generally considered the tipping point for climatic upheaval.

The availability of biofuels makes more difference to the ultimate price tag, the panel concluded, than whether electricity generation can be harnessed successfully to the sun and wind. Only carbon capture and storage technology is more important.

In most of the climate change panel’s models that bring temperatures back under the 2-degree ceiling by the end of the century, biofuels are assumed to produce about 250 to 350 exajoules of energy a year.

To put that in context, 300 exajoules is over half the world’s current energy consumption. Today, the energy content of all the biomassharvested for food, fodder and everything else amounts to about 220 exajoules.

Dried distillers grains are a byproduct of the making of ethanol.CreditJeffrey M. Smith/The Port Huron Times Herald, via Associated Press

The question is, Where will the land to produce all this additional vegetation come from?

As a committee of the European Environmental Agency noted, to reduce the amount of CO₂in the air, bioenergy production “must increase the total amount of plant growth, making more plants available for energy use while preserving other benefits.”

André Faaij, an expert on energy systems at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands and author of many important assessments used by the panel on the potential for bioenergy, argues that it is definitely feasible.

The world could feed 35 billion people (the earth’s current population is seven billion) if only the productivity of agriculture and livestock in the developing world were brought to developed country standards, he said. “Mozambique could feed all of Africa if it just increased its productivity to that of the Netherlands.”

That could free up a lot of land. Deploying just 10 percent of the world’s five billion hectares currently used for crops and pastures to grow biofuels could generate 100 to 150 exajoules by the end of the century. An additional 60 to 70 could be had from planting biofuels on currently degraded land. The rest could come from better harvesting of forests and the use of organic waste.

In a recent research article, Professor Faaij and colleagues calculated that it would be technically possible to get about 100 exajoules by 2050 from what they call “surplus forest growth,” meaning the bits of forest that are neither protected nor already exploited for wood, and wood waste.

This sort of calculation drives Mr. Searchinger up the wall. “Surplus forest growth” he said, is already pulling CO₂from the air. Harvesting it for energy will provide no further benefit for climate change. The same could be said of idled agricultural land, where forest usually starts regrowing soon, capturing carbon from the air.

“In many contexts, allowing a forest to grow will do more to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for decades than producing bioenergy,” he told me.

And he finds the estimates of future agricultural productivity unbelievable when applied to any reasonable understanding of the real world. Indeed, it will be hard to maintain the productivity growth of the last several decades, he says, let alone substantially increase it.

“Because the world needs to produce 70 percent more of virtually all the products of land — crops, grasses and wood — by 2050, there is no additional room for bioenergy, and any capacity to increase crop yields and to make better use of any underutilized land is already needed for these other purposes,” Mr. Searchinger said.

Professor Faaij says the skeptics are wrong, arguing that the alternatives to a huge increase in biofuel production would be even more difficult to achieve.

But it could be possible to produce the zero-carbon energy the world will need without incurring such steep opportunity costs. Much of the transport fleet could be electrified, reducing demand for liquid fuels. Solar power could be used to produce hydrogen to burn in fuel cells.

There is probably a limited role for biofuels from waste products. But the biofuels juggernaut — which has helped garner the support of agribusiness in the battle against climate change — could end up doing more harm than good.

The United States used to rely heavily on bioenergy for transport: 100 years ago, tens of millions of acres were devoted to growing feed for pack animals. Since then, much of this land has reverted to forest. Razing it again for fuel is not the best idea.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/11/business/economy/a-biofuel-debate-will-cutting-trees-cut-carbon.html?_r=0

Paper criticizes cost, benefit of Boundary Dam Carbon Capture project | CJME

Paper criticizes cost, benefit of Boundary Dam Carbon Capture project

SaskPower, premier says project strikes balance

Reported by Lisa Schick

First Posted: Feb 10, 2015 4:40pm | Last Updated: Feb 11, 2015 7:49am

Change text size: + -

SaskPower hailed the Boundary Dam Carbon Capture Project as landmark, and the "first of its kind," but now a new paper is called the project environmentally and financially irresponsible.

The paper published by the left-leaning think tank, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives said the $1.4 billion spent on the project was possibly too much for SaskPower unless it's permitted to raise rates, which will end up costing more for customers across the province.

It also states that the risk was very high for the project, and the future financial rewards from the technology are "questionable."

Upgrades to the Queen Elizabeth plant or a wind farm would have been a better investment, said Mark Bigland-Pritchard, an independent environmental analyst who co-authored the paper with Brian Banks, a former director of the CCPA's Saskatchewan office.

Thanks to federal regulations, without the carbon capture project, the coal plant would have had to be shut down. But Bigland-Pritchard said coal is a very expensive way of generating electricity.

"We could actually generate the same power from wind for probably half the price, so why are we not doing that? Every country which is making a serious attempt to cut its carbon emissions is taking that route rather than the CCS (carbon capture and storage) route."

Bigland-Pritchard supports leaving coal behind completely as an energy source. He said that renewable resources are a proven pathway, whereas carbon capture technology is very expensive and unproven.

The paper also criticized the project on an environmental basis. SaskPower touts it as capturing one million tonnes of greenhouse gases, but the paper said that's only about seven per cent of all greenhouse gases generated by Saskatchewan's coal power, and less than two per cent of the province's total emissions.

It also took issue with the deal the province has made with Cenovus Energy to buy some of the carbon that it captures to use in the oil fields. The paper explained that for every tonne of carbon injected into the earth, about 2.7 times as much carbon dioxide will be put into the air from the burning of the extra oil taken out of the ground.

The paper called the decision to go with the Boundary Dam project a political one, coming from the provincial government. Bigland-Pritchard said he's not against carbon capture technology.

"I think we may be needing this technology in future, but now, I think, is not the time for it."

Banks and Bigland-Pritchard aren't the first to bring up concerns with the project. Just before the facility opened last year, John Bennett, director of environment group Sierra Club of Canada told the Globe and Mail, "It’s a waste of vital capital that should be invested in conservation, efficiency and renewable (energy).”

Regardless, the project has gotten a lot of international attention. Representatives from 20 countries attended the opening of the facility in October 2014, and it was listed as number two in National Geographic's article "10 Energy Breakthroughs that could change your life."

At the project's launch, Premier Brad Wall said it strikes a balance between the energy we need and protecting the environment.

In response to the paper, SaskPower went over the positives of the project. The Crown corporation said it's providing affordable coal power to 100,000 homes and businesses that's ten times cleaner than other coal units. Greenhouse gas emissions have been reduced after SaskPower shut down units 1 and 2 at the Boundary Dam Power Station.

SaskPower said it's reduced its reliance on coal power from 65 per cent to 45 per cent in the last ten years. Last year, over 25 per cent of power in Saskatchewan came from renewable resources, including hydro, wind, and biomass.

LSchick@rawlco.com
Follow on Twitter: @LMSchickler

Source: http://cjme.com/story/paper-criticizes-cost-benefit-boundary-dam-carbon-capture-project/534597