News   Nov 01, 2024
 2.1K     14 
News   Nov 01, 2024
 2.5K     3 
News   Nov 01, 2024
 749     0 

Dion touts clean coal for power

B

bizorky

Guest
Dion touts clean coal for power

Provincial Liberals favour nuclear power, but federal leader fears waste disposal a problem

January 17, 2007
Rob Ferguson
Queen's Park Bureau

Nuclear power is an iffy proposition for Canada because the issue of how to handle waste that remains radioactive for thousands of years has not been properly dealt with, Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion said yesterday.

"As long as I'm not able to look Canadians in the eyes and to say, `I'm comfortable with the waste,' I will not recommend it," Dion, elected leader last month on an environmental platform, said after a breakfast speech to a Bay Street crowd.

It's also time to look at clean coal as a solution to meeting electricity needs while reducing harmful emissions blamed for global warming, Dion told a business audience in what was billed as his first major speech as head of the federal party.

"I think there are cleaner coal possibilities, we need to go there to invest in it and to be a champion in the world," said Dion, noting university researchers in Saskatchewan and Alberta are looking into the potential.

The remarks appeared to put him at odds with his Liberal cousins in the Ontario government, who are preparing to build more nuclear power plants and hoping to phase out coal-fired power plants to meet the twin challenges of fast-growing electricity needs and increasing smog.

Ontario Energy Minister Dwight Duncan, who has said previously that coal isn't a long-term option, denied there's a policy rift between the two branches of the Liberal party.

"I didn't see it that way at all," he said in an interview, noting a federal panel is studying better ways to deal with storage of nuclear waste from uranium that powered atomic reactors. "We've always said nuclear waste isn't an easy issue."

More research into so-called "clean coal" is needed to see if there are ways to burn it without spewing carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas blamed for global warming, into the atmosphere, added Duncan, whose government has twice broken promised deadlines for phasing out coal power plants.

Dion said he wouldn't trample on provincial jurisdiction by telling provinces what to do about nuclear power, but noted more countries are looking at it because it doesn't produce greenhouse gases that cause global warming.

"It's an unavoidable debate," he told reporters.

He urged Canadian businesses to get on his environmental bandwagon, cutting greenhouse gas emissions and inventing earth-friendly technologies to be part of a green "industrial revolution" that will sweep the world.

"Yes, Canada will cut megatonnes of emissions, but we will also make megatonnes of money," he told an audience of hundreds of members of the Economic Club of Toronto and the Toronto Board of Trade.

Dion said he'd also like to see high-speed trains become an option in Canada, reducing reliance on air travel for short hops, with a rail link that could whisk travellers from Toronto to Montreal in three hours.

"How many of us will take the train instead the plane?" he said to applause.

----------------------------------------

Interesting. Now that coal has been demonized as a C02 producing enemy, it is now being revived as a "clean" solution. Anyone who has been arguing for clean coal research and development over the past few years must feel annoyed to no end that it has suddenly been discovered as a "green" soution to energy needs when they have pointing that out all along.

On another note, the last two paragraphs are also encouraging. Shall we actually see investment in the corridor routes of VIA? A shorter train ride? As someone who goes between Toronto and Ottawa quite often, I am all for this.
 
Maybe VIA trains will be powered by clean coal.

That'd thrill train foamers for sure, nuyck, nuyck.
 
Or we could have nuclear powered locomotives...

AoD
 
Ottawa to invest $230-million in clean energy

ALEX DOBROTA
Globe and Mail Update

Ottawa — The Conservative government Wednesday announced a $230-million investment to research clean-energy technologies, the first of a series of political moves on climate change meant to improve the Tories' record on the environment.

Environment Minister John Baird and Minister of Natural Resources Gary Lunn told reporters the money would be spent on finding ways to clean up conventional sources of energy such as coal and oil.

“Canada is an emerging energy superpower,†Mr. Lunn told reporters at the CANMET Energy Technology Centre. “But our real challenge is to be a clean-energy superpower.â€

For example, research in the field of clean coal is very promising, said Mr. Lunn, as he stood beside an installation that burns coal in an oxygen-enriched environment, which releases less green-house gases in the atmosphere.

The $230-million investment, to be spent over four years, is part of funding allocated for the environment as part of last year's budget.

Both Mr. Lunn and Mr. Baird refused to comment on funding for environment initiatives in the upcoming spring budget.

Their announcement comes one day after Liberal leader Stéphane Dion announced his party's plans for clean power. Mr. Dion said he is no fan of nuclear power and that he favours cleaner energy sources as wind turbines and an east-west energy grid.

In a move that hinted at the Tories' position on the issue, Mr. Lunn Wednesday suggested that nuclear power can be used to extract oil out of the oil sands.

Mr. Lunn and Mr. Baird are set to make several other announcements on climate change over the next few days.

-----------------------------------

Suddenly everyone in politics loves clean coal.
 
Clean coal? Can i have a side of hot ice?

Nice to hear someone talk about high speed trains for once though.
 
Ooh... 3h Toronto-Montreal would be nice. The whole NE USA and central Canada should be linked by high speed trains... really, the best way to travel.
 
For example, research in the field of clean coal is very promising, said Mr. Lunn, as he stood beside an installation that burns coal in an oxygen-enriched environment, which releases less green-house gases in the atmosphere.

Huh? I would imagine burning coal in an oxygen-enriched environment would lead to the release of less carbon monoxide and more carbon dioxide. The carbon in coal has to go somewhere...

AoD
 
From CBC News:

Tories to spend $230M on clean energy technology
Federal minister says he is 'keen on' use of nuclear energy in Alberta's oil patch
Last Updated: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 | 8:45 AM MT
CBC News

The federal government will invest $230 million over four years on developing clean energy technologies in Canada, Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn said Wednesday.

The announcement, one of three this week involving environmental initiatives, is part of a larger federal plan to promote Canada as an energy superpower.

"The energy sector is one of our greatest successes. It is a major underpinning of our strong economy and the quality of life which Canadians are very proud of," Lunn told reporters in Ottawa.

"But we must do better. We must reduce emissions. We must become not just an energy superpower, but we must also become a clean energy superpower."

Lunn said the investment, called the ecoEnergy Technology Initiative, means total government spending on science and technology will be $1.5 billion over the next four years.

He said the federal government has decided its priorities for the environment include energy efficiency, renewable energy and cleaning up conventional energy.

"We think technology is one of the keys to cleaning up conventional energy production," he said.

Cleaner energy consumption, he said, includes carbon capture and storage and clean coal technology and research and development that will enable oilsands production in Alberta to be cleaner.

"We will challenge industry to come to the table like they never have before."

Lunn said he favours nuclear energy to extract petroleum from the oilsands in Alberta. "There's great promise in the oilsands for nuclear energy," he said.

"Nuclear energy is emission free. There's no greenhouse gases. We burn a lot of natural gas to extract that oil from the sands right now. There's great opportunity to pursue nuclear energy, something that I'm very keen on."

Lunn added there is no question that Canadians must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and meet emission targets, but those targets must be realistic and enforceable.

Environment Minister John Baird, who also spoke at the news conference, said the government knows it must take real action on climate change and it will do so in part through the use of clean energy technologies.

"Clean energy ties itself directly to the environment," Baird said.

Baird said the government is investing in ways of "protecting the atmosphere from waste gases, producing fuel technology to provide emergency back-up power instead of using conventional diesel generators, developing advanced clean coal technology to enable industry to reduce toxic emissions and studying ways in which to build solar heated homes and communities."
Further announcements expected Friday and Sunday

On Friday, the Conservative government is expected to speak about renewable energy, such as wind power, and on Sunday, it is expected to unveil a new program dealing with energy efficiency in the home.

John Bennett, executive director of Climate Action Network, told CBC News on Wednesday that clean energy technology is one way to protect the environment, but the best way is through regulation of industries that produce greenhouse gas emissions.

"There are all kinds of technology that show promise. We don't need investments into the future as badly as we need regulations on what we are doing today," he said. "It's critical that we get to the regulation of large polluters."

Bennett said environmentalists want regulations that would put a "hard cap" on greenhouse gas emissions produced by industry, with levels to be reduced by six per cent below 1990 levels by 2012. Also needed, he added, is an overall reduction in demand for energy.

"We really need initiatives that get the demand for energy down as opposed to looking for new supply."

Bennett said the government has provided few details about the new spending.

Lunn declined at the news conference to specify which companies will receive federal funding to develop clean energy technologies, although he described a few that have attracted government interest.
Nuclear risk

Matthew Bramley, spokesperson for the Pembina Institute, told CBC News that nuclear energy is not a good idea for use in the oil sands because it is costly, creates much waste and carries the risk of contamination. The institute is an independent environmental policy research organization.

"Nuclear energy should be right at the bottom of the list," he said.

Bramley said the government should implement "tough regulations" and "strong incentives" as part of a "credible climate change plan" to make energy production cleaner in Canada.

Glen Murray, the chair of the national roundtable on environment and the economy, said Tuesday he welcomes the news but he said Canada is lagging behind other countries in the development of environmental technology.

"The question is: does Canada lead that technology revolution, and be a maker of things for this new economy, or do we trail it and end up being a buyer of other people's technology and innovation?" he said.

Murray said clean energy technologies will not help Canada meet its first targets set under the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement under which more than 160 countries pledged to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases. He said the first targets may be out of reach by now, anyway.

If Canada fails to take action to curb its greenhouse gas emissions in the next five years, he said, the country will have a hard time meeting any targets set under the protocol.
_________________________________________________

So what's the Con's idea of reducing emissions? More talk of "energy superpower" nonsense based on oil sands - which isn't carbon neutral, to say the least.

AoD
 
Clean coal? How could something less flamable trump the burning efficiency of something very flamable? In the end if there is burning I don't see how GHGs will be reduced. I would much rather then figure out a good uranium unrefinement process so they could return spent uranium to the mines as an ore with less environmental risk then the originally mined product. Neither coal nor nuclear are renewable so neither are the best solution... but in the quest to reduce GHGs coal is definitely not going to help.
 
I tend to agree with Dion. Nuclear is an extremely dangerous technology because the waste is so dangerous to the environemnt and there is no real way to "dispose" of it. The best we can do is contain it on a short term basis.

Clean coal on the other hand can be done in such a way that it emits (very nearly) no smog-causing pollutants or GHG (which can be captured and stored in some more permanent way).
 
"Nuclear is an extremely dangerous technology because the waste is so dangerous to the environemnt and there is no real way to "dispose" of it."

How much would it cost to fill rockets with the stuff and blast it off into the sun? I'm totally half serious.

For now, we might as well just keep putting it in already-contaminated sacrifice zones.
 
Nuclear isn't that dangerous if handled properly and people aren't cutting corners. The uranium in the ground is more radioactive than the spent uranium. If the spent uranium was put back into the original ore form then the material being disposed of would be less dangerous than the original naturally existing ore. There are ways to dispose of the nuclear waste safely if the government would spend a little on research to create the methods and spend to start the program which would do it. Unfortunately if the government allows this waste to sit in storage pools indefinitely and leave old mines in poor conditions then that is what will be done because doing near nothing is the cheaper solution. More needs to be done to properly clean up uranium mine sites, improve containment at mine sites, etc. Solid waste products are far easier to control than gaseous waste products if the effort is there.
 
The other issue is that nuclear fuels are used VERY inefficiently right now, with the majority of U235 left unfissioned in a single fuel cycle. Most of the long lived transuranic elements could be "burnt" if there is fuel reprocessing (particularly pyroprocessing - which doesn't produce weapons grade material). Advanced reactor designs (e.g. pebble bed) are also practically meltdown proof.

AoD
 
Nuclear is not as dangerous as it is made out to be. But I don't think it should be the only source of power. As for clean coal, I think there should be a description of what is meant by clean coal. There is nothing wrong with the idea other than the fact that the word "clean" is a bit vague in the usage.
 

Back
Top