FROM Douglas Lightfoot's paper published in Energy in the August 2007 issue (Volume 32, issue 8)
Understand the three different scales for measuring primary energy and avoid errors
Three quite different scales for measuring the amount of primary energy the world uses annually are currently in use. The Engineering Information Administration, the International Energy Agency and the Working Group III (WG III) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), each has its own scale for measuring and recording primary energy. The purpose of this paper is to clarify the relationship between these scales so the reader can avoid introducing errors into work involving primary energy. An example is presented to show how mixing of these scales, and not identifying them, constitutes an error in 16 of the 40 energy scenarios in the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios prepared by WG III of the IPCC. These three scales arise mainly because of legitimate differences of opinion about how to measure and record primary energy, and especially for generating electricity from nuclear and renewable energies. All three scales use "Joules" as the unit of energy measurement, but these ‘‘Joules’’ are arbitrary units and are not the precise Joule as defined and used in physics and chemistry
Subject: Re: Forcing Ottawa's hand on Kyoto, The Gazette, May 14,
2007
Dear Editor:
Bill C-288, if it becomes law, is a formula for
severely hurting all Canadians economically.
When Kyoto was born, there was no technology
available for any country to meet its commitment within the time frame. There
is still no technology available.
It is well-known that any time the world falls
into recession, carbon emissions fall.
Therefore, realistically, the only course of
action for Canada that has any chance of meeting Kyoto within the time frame
of Bill C-288 is to create a giant recession in the country and put
millions out of work. Such action will certainly cut Canada's carbon
emissions dramatically, but have little, if any, effect on world carbon
emissions.
Bill C-288 shows a lack of respect for the
well-being of Canadians. It falls far short of seeking a solution that
respects both people and the environment. Let's hope that good sense prevails
and Bill C-288 is rejected.
Re: "There is plenty of oil around" (Letters, Dec. 18).
The Cambridge Energy Research Associates might be right in the very short term. However, they base their predictions on the size of oil reserves that includes oil that might be manufactured from tar sands, oil shale and other unconventional sources.
On the other hand, the "peak -oil" people are concerned about production rates. For example, we cannot recover tar from the tar sands and convert it to synthetic crude oil fast enough to have a significant impact on filling world oil demand. Today, such oil represents about one per cent of world consumption and might rise to about 2.5 per cent in 2015.
The only reason sources such as the tar sands are being exploited today is because oil in oil wells is now very difficult to find and recover. The 15 billion barrels of oil recently discovered in the Gulf of Mexico would last the world about six months at the current consumption rate of 30 billion barrels a year.
Because oil provides 95 per cent of our transportation energy, there really is a problem with future oil supply.
H. Douglas Lightfoot
Baie d'Urfe
12 March 2005 ARTHUR KAPTAINIS, Time to fire up the reactors?
After suffering a bad reputation for decades, nuclear power gets a boost from the desire to cut greenhouse gases
"Nuclear is clean and reliable," runs the voice-over to a television image of a blue sky, a fluffy cloud and a leafy green treetop. "It's been with us for over 40 years, already supplies
51 per cent of our electricity and must gear up now to power the years ahead."
It is hard to say whether this message from the Canadian Nuclear Association - rarely seen in hydro-happy Quebec but ubiquitous in Ontario - is having a significant effect on Canadian public opinion. But there is little doubt that the energy source equated 25 years ago with core meltdowns, toxic waste, carcinoma outbreaks, giant dandelions and mutant livestock has been looking better lately. Full story
Fossil-fuel damage may last 5,000 years
Computer simulations are dire. Threat from carbon emissions comparable to nuclear waste, study concludes
MARGARET MUNRO,
CanWest News Service
Published: Thursday, May 31, 2007
Burning all known reserves of fossil fuels, from Alberta's tar sands to China's vast stores of coal, would have much graver long-term consequences than previously thought, according to climate scientists who have peered far into the future.
"Not only are we going to mess up our kids' and grandkids' lives, we are going to be interfering with the way the planet works for thousands of years," said climate scientist Alvaro Montenegro, noting that much of the carbon emissions would persist in the atmosphere more than 5,000 years and drive up global temperatures for millennia.
Using sophisticated computer models, Montenegro and colleagues at the University of Victoria and the University of Chicago assessed the impact of consuming all known reserves of fossil
fuels until they run out in 2300. Their simulations assume that the carbon dioxide producing by burning the fuel would waft into the atmosphere as it does today.
"If we keep doing what we're doing right now, and the only thing that (stops) us from burning fossil fuels is the end of fossil fuels, that's what the experiment represents," said Montenegro, who presented the findings at an international meteorological conference in Newfoundland yesterday. The study is set to be published this year.
Asking what might happen if humans burn up all fossil fuels is pertinent today, he said, because global emissions continue to climb despite decades of talk about cuts.
There is increasing international pressure to commit to significant cuts in carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas linked to global warming. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has been pushing her G8 colleagues to agree that the world needs to cut CO2 emissions in half, relative to 1990 levels, by 2050. The United States has rejected the idea and Prime Minister Stephen Harper is under fire for not committing to the proposed target.
Leading scientists also have been calling for dramatic cuts, saying the climate system is coming perilously close to a tipping point, after which unstoppable global warming could melt polar ice, raise sea levels, trigger mass extinctions, and leave billions of people hungry, thirsty and homeless.
The data in Montenegro's study were based on two different models, which have also been used to generate simulations for a recent report from a United Nations intergovernmental panel on climate change. The models, developed at the University of Victoria and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, use information about past climates to project how future climates will respond to different circumstances.
The scenario developed by Montenegro's group followed the UN panel's "business as usual" emissions path. According to that projection, oil, gas and coal consumption would continue on its current trajectory until 2100, then taper off over 200 years as supplies dwindle. About 5,134 billion tonnes of carbon, locked underground for millions of years, would wind up in the global atmosphere.
Supercomputers ran the models for almost three months to calculate how the climate would respond in the 4,500 years after the emissions finally stop. The scientists concluded that average temperatures around the globe would soar six to eight degrees Celsius and would remain at least five degrees higher than pre-industrial levels for more than 5,000 years.
About 75 per cent of CO2 emissions released by burning all fossil fuels would persist in the atmosphere for an average of 1,800 years before being soaked up by forests, crops or the oceans, the Victoria study reports. The rest could take much longer than 5,000 years to be absorbed.
The massive release of carbon into the atmosphere would cause oceans to become significantly more acidic and affect the food chain. It would also change how the seas absorb and release carbon for thousands of years, the researchers said.
The results "indicate that the long-term consequences of anthropogenic climate change may be much greater that previously thought," concludes the study, which likens the carbon threat to the threat posed by nuclear waste because the impacts are so serious and long-lived.
Climate models are not perfect and are less reliable the farther into the future they extend, but scientists say they are the only available means of exploring different scenarios.
"There is enough uncertainty that the future could play out differently," Montenegro acknowledged in an interview. "But it's the best we can do."
Global temperatures will rise for a millennia, UVic study finds
Margaret Munro,
CanWest News Service
Published: Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Burning all known reserves of fossil fuels, from Alberta's tar sands to China's vast stores of coal, would have much graver long-term consequences than previously thought, according to climate scientists who have peered far into the future.
"Not only are we going to mess up our kids' and grandkids' lives, we are going to be interfering with the way the planet works for thousands of years," says climate scientist Alvaro Montenegro, noting that much of the carbon emissions would persist in the atmosphere more than 5,000 years and drive up global temperatures for millennia.
Using sophisticated computer models, Montenegro and colleagues at the University of Victoria and the University of Chicago assessed the impact of consuming all known reserves of fossil fuels until they run out in 2300. Their simulations assume that the carbon dioxide producing by burning the fuel would waft into the atmosphere as it does today.
Scientists estimate world's fuel resources, like Alberta's oilsands, will be gone by 2300.
Rick MacWilliam, CanWest News Service
"If we keep doing what we're doing right now, and the only thing that (stops) us from burning fossil fuels is the end of fossil fuels, that's what the experiment represents," says Montenegro, who presented the findings at an international meteorological conference in Newfoundland on Wednesday. The study is to be published later this year.
Asking what might happen if humans burn up all fossil fuels is pertinent today, he says, because global emissions continue to climb despite decades of talk about cuts.
There is increasing international pressure to commit to significant cuts in carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas linked to global warming. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has been pushing her G-8 colleagues to agree that the world needs to cut CO2 emissions in half, relative to 1990 levels, by 2050. The United States has rejected the idea and Prime Minister Stephen Harper is under fire for not committing to the proposed target.
Leading scientists have also been calling for dramatic cuts, saying the climate system is coming perilously close to a tipping point, after which unstoppable global warming could melt polar ice, raise sea levels, trigger mass extinctions, and leave billions of people hungry, thirsty and homeless.
The data in Montenegro's study were based on two different models, which have also been used to generate simulations for a recent report from a United Nations intergovernmental panel on climate change. The models, developed at the University of Victoria and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, use information about past climates to project how future climates will respond to different circumstances.
The scenario developed by Montenegro's group followed the UN panel's "business as usual" emissions path. According to that projection, oil, gas and coal consumption would continue on its current trajectory until 2100, then taper off over 200 years as supplies dwindle. Some 5,134 billion tonnes of carbon, locked underground for millions of years, would wind up in the global atmosphere.
Supercomputers ran the models for almost three months to calculate how the climate would respond in the 4,500 years after the emissions finally stop. The scientists concluded that average temperatures around the globe would soar 6-8 C and would remain at least five degrees higher than pre-industrial levels for more than 5,000 years.
About 75 per cent of CO2 emissions released by burning all fossil fuels would persist in the atmosphere for an average of 1,800 years before being soaked up by forests, crops or the oceans, the Victoria study reports. The rest could take much longer than 5,000 years to be absorbed.
The massive release of carbon into the atmosphere would cause oceans to become significantly more acidic and affect the food chain. It would also change how the seas absorb and release carbon for thousands of years, the researchers say.
The results "indicate that the long-term consequences of anthropogenic climate change may be much greater that previously thought," concludes the study, which likens the carbon threat to the threat posed by nuclear waste because the impacts are so serious and long-lived.
Climate models are not perfect and are less reliable the farther into the future they extend, but scientists say they are the only available means of exploring different scenarios.
"There is enough uncertainty that the future could play out differently," Montenegro acknowledged in an interview. "But it's the best we can do."
We are entering the Peak Oil era. The growth of oil production is slowing, driving up oil and gasoline gas prices, firing inflation, driving unemployment, straining our global economy, and threatening to collapse our entire system. We are reaching Peak Oil and we are unprepared. Teacher Aaron Wissner, in a compact 10 minutes video summary, details Peak Oil, the evidence, the impacts, and the solutions. See the full one-hour video at LocalFuture.org. Also, at YouTube, see the conclusion, of that presentation, part 5 of 5, which highlights the impacts, underlying problem, and solutions to Peak Oil
BBC
View Larger Image
Please phone (514)934-0023 
Please e-mail us your thoughts. 
