Welcome To The Sinocanadian

Opinion on the relationship between Canada and China - especially on issues of the environment.

China puts on air force show – rehearsal

Posted By Rob on September 21, 2009

As I was typing at my desk this morning, I saw some movement out of the corner of my eye.  The guys on the construction site next door were running around looking up at the sky.  It seemed pretty strange, so I also looked up at the sky, and lo and behold, there was a formation of bombers flying over The China World Hotel, right beside my building, straight down Chang An Jie.  Followed by another formation.  Followed by 3 or 4 groups of fighter jets…followed by more jets…followed by about 50 helicopters, and more jets and more bombers.

September 21, 2009's airforce flyby rehearsal

September 21, 2009's airforce flyby rehearsal

In fact, last Friday night, everyone with an office along Chang An Jie was kicked out around 3 p.m.  in preparation for the 60th Anniversary of the PRC parade rehearsal.  I stayed late…but on my way home, geez, I saw it all…tanks, armoured carriers, missile launchers, missiles, every kind of artillery you can imagine… oh it’s going to be a heck of a show on October 1.    And if the weather stays the way it is today…what a grand tribute it is going to be to 60 years of the PRC.  Too bad I won’t be here!

We’re looking forward to more rehearsals!

Now, if only we could get the Canadian government website working again in China…..

Government of Canada main site blocked in Beijing!

Posted By Rob on September 21, 2009

O Canada, my home and native land…what have we done?  All I wanted to do was search the Canadian government staff directory, and low and behold, canada.gc.ca is blocked in Beijing!  Which word was it?  ”English?” “French” or…heaven forbid… “français”?.  Was it Prime Minister Harper’s steely blue eyes that set off the censor?  Further testing reveals that some of the subdomains, international.gc.ca and ec.gc.ca all work.  But what’s the deal?  Is this an intential snub?

Furthermore, the website has been blocked for a couple of days, at least…and it’s still not fixed.  The people I contacted at the embassy didn’t seem to know much about it, but maybe I contacted the wrong people, so I won’t blame them.

What’s going on on canada.gc.ca?

Lifecycle GHG emissions of various sources of crude – Alberta

Posted By Rob on August 28, 2009

A new study commissioned by the Alberta (Canada) government demonstrates that lifecycle GHG emissions of different sources of crude oil are different, and that China (and all countries) need to take note of this in their transport sector emission calculations.

The Alberta government is trying desperately to make sure that oil sands oil doesn’t get blocked from the US market when new fuel policies come into effect.  As it stands, oil from Alberta’s oil sands will likely be blocked from California under the world-leading Low Carbon Fuel Standard.

In its efforts, the Government of Alberta commissioned two studies (TIAXExecutive Summary and Full Study -  and Jacobs - Executive Summary and Full Study) to analyse the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions associated with various types of crude oil – including crude processed from Canadian oil sands.  They found that some oil sands oil has lifecycle emissions comparable to some conventional crude oil (although most oil sands results turned out to be considerably higher than most conventional crude oils).  The attached image, from the Jacobs consultancy report, summarizes the findings.  Note that 70 gCO2e/MJ gasoline, which make up the bulk of the emissions, are embodied in the actual fuel.  The variation seen in this image is attributed to different production life cycles.  “Thermal” and “mining” refer to different development styles for oil sands in Canada.

Now, these reports have come under considerable criticism from organizations who don’t want to see oil sands / tar sands oil flowing into the US anymore, such as the Natural Resource Defence Council’s blog on the issue.  Honestly, this isn’t the interesting discussion for me.

The interesting thing for me is that different conventional crude oils have different lifecycle GHG emissions, possibly differing up to 10%, such as in the case between Arab Medium and Bonny Light, as illustrated above.

This means that any transport sector GHG emission analyses that assume one value for crude oil WTW emissions might be off by several percentage points, depending on the difference between the assumed weighted average of crude oil LCA GHG emissions, and the actual weighted average.

I like advanced biofuels as a means of reducing lifecycle GHG emissions in the transport sector, but if significant emission reductions can be achieved by simply shifting sources of crude oil from one supplier to another, this is also an important consideration to make, given that advanced biofuel technology is not quite commercialized yet.

It would be incumbent on China energy analysts to understand the relative sources of crude oil to China, and to undertake LCAs on each of those sources so as to minimize GHG emissions from the transport sector during this time of transition to alternative sources of energy.  Similarly, analyses on different sources of coal should be undertaken in order to accomplish the same lower carbon shifting of conventional energy sources.

New RSS link – please update

Posted By Rob on August 24, 2009

Just so everyone knows, The Sinocanadian has a new RSS link.  Please update your reader accordingly.

http://feeds.feedburner.com/Sinocanadian

Thanks!

Canada and waste gasification – what can Canada do in China?

Posted By Rob on August 24, 2009

Today’s Globe and Mail contains a great article entitled GARBAGE IN / ENERGY OUT which focuses on technologies being developed and implemented by Canadian companies for converting municipal trash into carbon sources for energy production.

Where in the past, waste-to-energy meant simply burning trash to create heat for steam turbines, gasification uses ultra-high temperatures and a zero-oxygen environment to break materials into their basic atomic elements, and recombine the carbon into carbon monoxide which is useful for all sorts of chemical and energy reactions, including conversion into fischer-tropsch liquids, methanol or through combustion, to electricity.

Combustion produces nasty by-products such as dioxins which have made waste incineration not just politically unpopular, but also dangerous for public health.  Gasification, on the other hand, completely destroys hazardous organic chemicals, while making other contaminants relatively easy to collect.  In the meantime, gasification collects all the carbon into a useful energy product, meaning that there are no direct carbon emissions resulting from the destruction of garbage.

So far, gasification hasn’t made a big spash in China outside the coal-to-methanol sphere which, let’s admit, is not exactly a low-carbon energy.

But let’s look at this.  China is interested in energy security — particularly petroleum security.  It’s got lots of garbage.  It’s interested in a low carbon economy.  Waste-to-fuel would seem to be a key technology for reducing GHG emissions from the transport sector, which China (and the rest of the world) are struggling immensely with.

There’s got to be a place for Canada somewhere in this equation.

What needs to happen?

As it stands right now, the fuel supply in China is tightly controlled.  Only 5 plants can produce bioethanol and sell it into the PetroChina / SinoPec fuel distribution networks. The reason for this is that the government is worried about all of China’s food supply being used to make fuel ethanol by small, uncontrollable companies.  Government doesn’t even want to deal with small biodiesel producers, who barely make a dent in China’s diesel demand.

In order to sell clean fuels to market, some policy changes need to be made, which will allow particular, certified producers of clean fuels to sell their fuels into the national fuel distribution system.  Such a policy should include criteria for fuel sustainability, technological and economic feasibility, lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, etc.  It should also include a verification system so that companies can be monitored to ensure that food is not being used to make ethanol to sell into the distribution system.

If change is going to happen, we need a good policy analysis with a complete policy suggestion (which iCET is currently working on), a technology provider, and importantly, an investor who is ready to put his/her money where his/her mouth is.  It’s the best way to get a meeting with the powers that be, and the best way to make change for cleaner transport fuels in China.