Category: energy

Even small reductions in warming matter to the Arctic

^{A difference of half a degree Celsius would make a huge difference in the future of the Arctic. A carbon sequestration project in Iceland offers hope of keeping warming under control.}

ARCTIC TODAY — Half a degree difference in temperature may seem inconsequential, but it matters a great deal in the Arctic.

The Earth has already warmed 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) since the 19th Century, but the Arctic is warming two or three times faster. Now, a recent United Nations report is looking at what is likely to happen if global temperatures vault past 1.5 to 2C — and the Arctic heats up even more.

“The Arctic takes a leading role in the concerns expressed in the report,” Hans-Otto Pörtner, a senior scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute and one of the report’s 91 authors, said during the Arctic Circle Assembly in Reykjavik, Iceland last month.

Half a degree could be the difference between having summer Arctic sea ice or not. Under 1.5C of global warming, the Arctic Ocean is likely to be ice-free in the summer once in a century. That risk rises to once per decade at 2C. The change would affect organisms on all levels, from algae and copepods to fish, whales and other marine mammals — and the people who rely on them for food and other uses.

Warming of 2C would also bring a later ice freeze-up and a longer ice-free open water season. There would be more storm surges and extreme weather events, and accelerated permafrost thaw. If warming remained at 1.5C, on the other hand, approximately 2 million square kilometers of permafrost — an area larger than Alaska — would remain frozen. In Alaska alone, the impact of climate change on public infrastructure could cost as much as $5.5 billion.

The Arctic has already endured the strain of global warming. For example, land ice loss has doubled since 2008. Canada’s Arctic glaciers are melting faster than ever before due to warming air temperatures; in the past 16 years, five glaciers have been lost entirely.

.::. Keep reading at ArcticToday.

November 5, 2018
Canadian biofuel plans derailed

Iogen cancels a pioneering facility to turn crop waste into ethanol.

A leading biofuels company whose products have powered Formula 1 racing cars has hit a major bump in the road.

Canadian company Iogen Energy in Ottawa announced on 30 April that it has shelved plans to build a large-scale facility in Manitoba to produce fuel ethanol from cellulose, the long molecular chain of sugars that forms the fibrous material in plants.

Instead, the company will “refocus its strategy and activities”, leading to a smaller development programme and the loss of 150 jobs, its joint owners Royal Dutch Shell and Iogen Corporation said in a statement. Iogen Corporation would not comment further on the story and Shell did not respond to Nature‘s questions.

In the past decade, growing concerns about climate change, rising energy consumption and dependence on foreign oil have prompted countries and companies to invest in biofuel production.

Most fuel ethanol is made by fermenting the sugars in grains or sugar cane, but cellulosic ethanol can be made from municipal waste, wood chips, grass, and the stalks, leaves and stems of food crops. It is seen as a more sustainable biofuel because it does not divert food from dinner tables to biorefineries. But cracking apart the tough cellulose molecules is a lot harder than brewing up simple sugars.

Cracking stuff

Iogen opened the world’s first demonstration plant for producing cellulosic ethanol in Ottawa in 2004. Its process uses enzymes to break down the cellulose in wheat, oat and barley straw to glucose, which is then converted to ethanol.

Although the plant’s production capacity is nearly 2 million litres per year, its output peaked at just 581,042 litres in 2009. In 2008, Iogen suspended plans to build a commercial-scale cellulosic ethanol facility in Iowa, and in 2011 it decided not to set up a plant in central Saskatchewan.

“This shouldn’t be seen as a black mark on the industry,” says Scott Thurlow, president of the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association. “There is still lots of opportunity in Canada.”

Keep reading this story in Nature.

Image from jayneandd on Flickr

May 3, 2012
Mixed Reviews for Quebec’s Plan Nord

The government of Quebec (Canada) has launched its multibillion-dollar Plan Nord, which will open the vast northern reaches of the province to mining and energy development–and protect 50% of the territory from economic development.

The 1.2-million-square-kilometre region—twice the size of France—is known for its wild rivers, biodiversity, diverse ecosystems and a large swath (about 20%) of Canada’s boreal forest. Boreal forest covers more than 25% of Quebec. More than 120,000 people, including 33,000 aboriginals also live in the region.

Quebec Premier Jean Charest said yesterday the government will invest CDN$80 billion into mining, forestry, transportation, energy development and tourism over the next 25 years.

The environmental aspects of the plan include the promise to set aside 600,000 square kilometres of the region to protect the environment and preserve biodiversity. By 2016, the government will have established several provincial parks, completed a survey of northern Quebec’s biodiversity, protected over 31,000 square kilometres of land, and adopted mitigation or restoration plans for each development project.

By protecting half of the forest, the Quebec government will keep more than 13.8 billion tons of CO2 sequestered—equivalent to about 70 years of industrial carbon dioxide emissions in Canada (Canadian Boreal Initiative, 2009 release).

The Plan Nord is getting mixed reviews from environmental groups. The Canadian Boreal Initiative, affiliated with the Pew Environment Group’s International Boreal Conservation Campaign applauded the sustainable development measures included within the plan (release). But others, including Greenpeace and Nature Quebec, said they could not endorse the plan as presented. The coalition of groups told the Globe and Mail the plan was “an attempt to regulate a mining boom rather than the expression of an authentic vision for the north.” They called for, among other things, an evaluation of the global environmental impacts of northern development.

From the Nature News blog.

Image: MRNF, Gouvernement du Quebec

May 10, 2011
River metals linked to tar sand extraction

Researchers find that pollutants in Canada’s Athabasca River are not from natural sources.

Oil-mining operations in Canada’s main tar sands region are releasing a range of heavy and toxic metals — including mercury, arsenic and lead — into a nearby river and its watershed, according to a new study.

Research published online yesterday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences shows that 13 elements classified as priority pollutants (PPEs) by the US Environmental Protection Agency were found in the Athabasca River in the province of Alberta¹. Seven of these were present at high enough concentrations to put aquatic life at risk. The findings are also of concern to human health.

Almost all of Alberta’s known oil reserves — 172 billion barrels — are found within tar sands. The provincial government expects that oil production will increase from about 1.3 million barrels per day to 3 million barrels per day by 2018.

Tar sands mining and upgrading — the process of extracting fuel from the mix of petroleum and sand or clay — produces sand, water, fine clays and minerals that are contained within tailing ponds.

A team led by ecologist David Schindler of the University of Alberta in Edmonton set out to test the government and oil industry’s claims that the concentrations of elements in the Athabasca River and its tributaries were from natural sources and not tar sands development.

The team took samples of surface water from the waterways upstream of the tar sands region and compared them with samples taken within the region — both upstream and downstream of mining projects. The researchers also looked at snow samples from many of the same areas towards the end of winter to look for airborne sources of PPEs, which would be discharged to surface waters when the snow melted.

→ Keep on reading at Nature

Image courtesy of NormanEinstein and Wikimedia Commons.

August 31, 2010