EnviroAb – Oct. 4-10

 Air Quality, Climate Change, EnviroAb  No Responses »
Oct 102010
 

With the daily publication of EnviroAb, I thought I would add a weekly commentary on some of the topics I found of most interest/value.

The relative roles and responsibilities of the federal and provincial committees reviewing oilsands monitoring was frequently discussed this week with questions of overlap, duplication etc.

The intent to establish aprovincial committee was announced Sep. 26:

http://alberta.ca/acn/201009/2920144932A4E-0BA6-6932-D9C0606CCBFE2BC1.html

And the names were made available this week:

http://environment.alberta.ca/03183.html

The committee is to report by Feb and is reviewing monitoring results and methods – to understand the apparently different results and to understand their significance historically.

The federal panel was announced Sep 30 and is to report within 60 days:

http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=714D9AAE-1&news=981D86D0-D3DB-4D71-8957-8EF52F85A05E

The mandate here seems broader – they are to review research and monitoring. The release actually mentions “of environmental effects” but I somehow doubt they will be limited to that.

It seems the federal panel is somewhat more oriented to the methods and systems in research and monitoring shill the provincial panel is more oriented to resolving some of the specific inconsistencies in observations. So, they are complementary but it would have been better if the provincial panel reported first.

James Hansen added significantly to the hearings about the Total oilsands proposal:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/oil-sands-should-be-left-in-the-ground-nasa-scientist/article1743844/

I found two things interesting about this intervention. First, I wondered about his appearance at such a hearing and being reported as from the Goddard Institute. I presume he wasn’t presenting a position of GISS but his own opinion. I wonder if that was made clear during the hearing.

More importantly, this whole hearing is a reflection of the reality that there is really no policy or law in place today to manage GHG emissions. One has to have the argument over each individual project or initiative.

Understanding Carbon Emissions

 Air Quality, Climate Change  No Responses »
May 202010
 
Elbow River

(Photo:  Elbow River, Calgary, Alberta)

I am certainly no expert but I am interested in trying to understand the emissions of carbon from various energy sources.  A report from CERA calculates the ‘well to wheels’ emissions with Canada’s oil sands as the energy source.  (Well to wheels is defined as:  The oil extraction, processing, distribution, through to the combustion of the refined products, such as gasoline and the resulting emissions that exit through the tailpipe.)

The study conclusion states that emissions ”are approximately 5 to 15 percent higher than the average crude oil processed in the United States.” 

A comment on a National Post site suggests the emissions of heavy oil sources in California are higher than the average oilsands emissions.

It would be very interesting to determine more ‘wells to wheels’ calculations of emissions.  Personally, I would like to see these calculations be inclusive of all ‘associated’ emissions.  For example, the production of conventional oil can, depending on what is done, be accommpanied by the flaring or venting of natural gas. 

The wikipedia entry concerning oil production in Nigeria, indicates the oil from there is light and sweet (implying there would be lower overall emissions to refine this to a usable state) but then goes on to indicate that much natural gas is flared off.

I will be trying to learn more about the equivalencies of so called “well to wheels” emissions for various energy sources.

Capital Region Air Quality

 ACAA, Air Quality  1 Response »
Apr 212010
 
Whyte Avenue

I attended the Alberta Capital Airshed Alliance (ACAA) AGM this past week.

I learned that the emmissions of pollutants ( NOx, SO2, PM2.5) are roughly emmitting by these sectors in our region:

50% – transportation (cars, trucks, buses, etc.)
25% – large industrial sources (such as refineries, etc.)
25% – other sources – med and small industry, offices, malls, etc. Etc.

So, with continuing significant population growth and development in the capital region, to maintain our mostly Alberta blue skies, we must effectively manage our emissions from transportation. That requires action by a lot of people.

And, we see some of those. The UPass system must be encouraging the adoption/use of transit – a practise that we will want students to continue as they move from studying to “work” in other places. The City’s (with support from the province etc.) Development of LRT and other transit initiatives is a long-term investment in air quality. The federal governments recent announcements of car standards is yet one more action.

How can the ACAA help advance continuing progress? Or, should the ACAA focus efforts on the other 50% of emission sources?

EAVB_WXLRNPTYAP

Suncor upset conditions

 ACAA, Air Quality  No Responses »
Mar 312010
 

On March 19th, the Suncor refinery in east Edmonton recorded a upset in their operating that resulted in plumes of smoke.

Yesterday, the Sherwood Park News reported that the Province of Alberta was awaiting further technical details from Suncor.  The paper specifically reports that:

At the time of the first sample there was a 0.278 mg/m3 concentration of particulate matter at the refinery fence line and 1.00 mg/m3 at Petroleum Way/Steambank Avenue.

I am thinking I don’t understand the units or the units have been mis-reported.  For example, the Conference Board of Canada has a site that compares particulate matter across Canada and between Canada and other countries.  Average numbers reported are typically 15 to 30 microgram per cubic metre.  The highest number above is 278 microgram per cubic metre.  Am I right in this?

The Edmonton Journal reported on this on March 20th.  There are a couple interesting pieces in that report.

It notes that a Suncor spokesperson identified that there were no exceedences of provincial air quality limits reported.  A future post on this — I wonder what parameters are measured and whether they are reliable indicators for this kind of incident.

Chris Severinson-Baker from the Pembina Institute suggested people in Sherwood Park should have questions about this and noted that the monitors likely would not have measured the hydrocarbons that were emitted.

How do we access information to determine whether we should be concerned or not? Could we have more open data concerning emissions? Do we even have the capacity to determine emissions from such a process upset?