Samsung to build 600 MW of Renewables

South Korean industrial giant Samsung Group has announced plans to build 600 megawatts of renewable wind and solar power projects in Ontario.

The Energy and Infrastructure Ministry is now asking the province's power authority to "hold in reserve" enough transmission capacity to support "renewable energy generating facilities whose proponents have signed a province-wide framework agreement with the province".

500 megawatts will be set aside and 100 MW will be developed on Class 3 agricultural lands in western Ontario

Samsung seeks to become a major developer of renewable-energy projects and a manufacturer of support machinery/products for maintenance.

If the deal goes through Samsung will be investing several billions of dollars in Ontario and create hundreds of jobs, most of them in manufacturing. All indications are the deal is a go.

The deal has sparked some controversy from competitors as to whether Samsung is receiving special treatment, but the truth is the province has to make assurances in an effort to make Samsung feel comfortable investing billions in Ontario.

When dealing with such large numbers its sometimes necessary to give some special treatment to make both parties feel their needs are being met.

Ontario has a goal of dramatically increasing their solar and wind capacity by 2011 and it will require some large reliable manufacturing companies to do it.

Climate Change Quotes

"Soon will come a day when climate change escapes all control. We are on the verge of the irreversible. Faced with this emergency, the time is not for half measures. The time is for a revolution: a revolution of our awareness, a revolution of the economy, a revolution of political actions." - Jacques Chirac, former French President.

"The new report gives us a stark warning that the potential impact will be more dramatic, faster and more drastic in terms of consequences than previously thought. This will change in some parts of the world the fundamental way in which we live." - Achim Steiner, head of the UN Environmental programme (UNEP).

"This report is a comprehensive and accurate reflection of the current state of climate change science." - Sharon Hays, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, US.

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from
observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures,
widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level3." - IPCC, Synthesis report

"If the last IPCC report was a wake-up call, this one is a screaming siren." - Stephanie Tunmore, Greenpeace International.

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." - George Orwell.

---

For more information about climate change and how it will effect tourism, check out the following PDF:
The Climate Change Challenge: Implications for the Tourism Industry

Clinton pushing climate change initiatives in Canada

Bill Clinton was in Canada last Saturday promoting climate change initiatives and free health care.

Of course, Canada already has free health care, but the point is still made. The United States is just starting on the road to free health care, for every uninsured child, senior and adult in the United States.

Clinton tried to pass free health care during his 8 years in the White House and only managed a few meager initiatives, health care programs for uninsured children. His goal of free health care for Americans was shouted down by Republican bigots in Congress worried about the overall cost and "Communist-style health care" (which is nonsense, because the USA up until 2009 was the only western country that didn't have free health care).

When George W. Bush got into power America's public health care system took one step forward and two steps backward. Bush signed into law a Medicare drug benefit program (something even Canada doesn't have), but later vetoed State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) legislation which would have expanded free health care to ten million American children (and would have been funded by a modest increase to cigarette taxes).

Since getting into power President Obama has quickly managed to do what Clinton couldn't do because he didn't have support from Congress, and what Bush refused to do because he doesn't give a damn about poor people. Less than a month in power and riding on overwhelming support and a Democratic majority in Congress, Obama signed the United States into a new era of free health care.

The issue is still being discussed in Congress, but its essentially a done deal. Better yet Obama already found a way to pay for it by decreasing the amount wealthy people get back from the IRS when they make charitable donations. Wealthy Americans used to get back 35% of their donation, but now they only get back 28%.

And poof! Free health care in America finally became a reality. Done and paid for.

Now if only we could do the same thing for the environment?

Clinton is effectively an unofficial ambassador for the Obama administration. So whenever he visits Canada or other nations overseas to give speeches, he's not just acting as a former president who cares about the USA, he's acting as a global ambassador for the USA to the rest of the world. That is how a former American president should act... help the USA and the world by being a spokesperson. (You will note Bush in comparison avoids the spotlight as much as possible.)

The problem is that selling the environment is a much tougher sell than health care (and we can see how long it took Americans to join the rest of the civilized world).

Think of it like a car... when you buy a new car from the Ford Motor Co. you expect it to work properly. But lo and behold they bought cheap brakes from China and the next thing you know you are upside down in a ditch, the car is on fire and in order to rescue you the firemen have to amputee your leg.

Afterwards you sue the Ford Motor Co. for damages (because they imported faulty brakes from China) and are awarded millions. Ford then promises to only buy quality brakes built in North America and has to recall thousands of cars to replace the brakes on each one.

But what about the tailpipe? Try and make the argument that cars pollute, produce greenhouse gases, which locks in heat, which causes global warming, which causes climate change, which causes a host of other environmental problems like polar ice caps melting and rising sea levels.

You can't sue Ford for damages. You'd have to sue the entire automotive industry, the coal industry and any other industry producing excess amounts of greenhouses gases... and it wouldn't just be the United States. It would be a global lawsuit. Its so ridiculously huge it would just plain never happen.

Thus trying to sell green initiatives to Americans can be very tricky. We can't even do it in Canada because we currently have a corrupt Conservative government under the "do nothing" bogus Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Harper has no intention of setting caps on greenhouse gases. He's been bought and paid off by the Alberta oil industry and the Atlantic coal industry.

Name one thing Harper has done to help the environment since getting into the PM's chair in February 2006? He announced some new national parks. That is it. The man epitomizes the "do nothing" approach to politics.

There has been no new "climate change initiatives" in Canada since Paul Martin left power in 2006.

And thus we come full circle. Now we understand why Bill Clinton is pushing such initiatives in Canada. Its because our own government is too lazy and corrupt to do it themselves.

83% of Canadians support initiatives to combat global warming and climate change. So why can't we elect a government that will actually make good on its promises?

Its because Canada has three separate left-wing parties: The Liberals, the NDP and the Greens. The NDP and the Greens will NEVER get elected and win a majority government, but the vote splitting between the three has resulted in the Liberal party being held back from winning majority governments. Its the reason we keep getting minority Conservative governments.

Remember Stephane Dion's idea to put a tax on carbon emissions? He bet an election on it and failed, despite the fact that it was originally a Conservative idea. What happened was the Reform Party (which has since changed its name to the Canadian Alliance Party, and changed it again to the Conservative Party) held a discussion back when Jean Chretien was still in power. Chretien wanted to put a cap on carbon emissions, but the Reform Party under Stockwell Day thought it was a better idea to just tax carbon emissions instead.

Stephen Harper later replaced Stockwell Day as leader, but because Harper is a puppet of the oil industry (whereas Stockwell Day is a puppet of right wing Christians) they had to abandon the carbon tax idea... which left it to be picked up by the Liberals and touted.

The problem is there really is no other ways to combat climate change. We have to cut carbon emissions somehow, and the only ways to do that is:

• Cap Carbon Emissions.
• Tax Carbon Emissions (and hope companies reduce the amount they release).
• Make cars more efficient (which we've already done).
• Increase sales of more fuel efficient cars like hybrids, electrics, hydrogen, etc. (which we are currently doing).
• Phase out coal powered plants by building lots of solar/wind alternatives (which we are doing already).

Which implies we will eventually start taxing/capping greenhouse gases anyway. Its just a matter of who will do it first, Canada or the United States?

Judging by the fact Obama has a majority of Democrats in Congress the USA might beat Canada to it.

India to build Wind Turbines in Ontario

Asia's largest maker of wind turbines is thinking of setting up in Ontario for a new manufacturing plant, believing Ontario has the right combination of policies, infrastructure and local desire for more wind power.

Tulsi Tanti, founder and chair of Suzlon Energy Ltd., says that the Ontario government's proposed Green Energy Act is a "very strong" initiative that helps set the province apart from other jurisdictions in North America. The decision to come to Canada could come soon. "Based on our analysis, 2010 is the right time for us to start business operations in the Canadian market."

Tanti, also called the "wind man of India," was ranked by Forbes magazine in 2008 as the 33rd richest man in India, with a family wealth of $1.1 billion. That is billion with a B... and he sells wind turbines...?

15 years ago Tanti was a thirty-something engineer trying to grow his textile company with a new line of polyester yarns, but the problem was India's unreliable electricity system and the high cost of power... so he decided to purchase two wind turbines in 1995. By 2000 he was so impressed he decided to sell off his textile business and start manufacturing wind turbines.

Today his company Suzlon is the fifth-largest wind turbine supplier in the world with $3.34 billion in revenues in 2008, 13,000 employees and sells wind mill and wind turbine products in 21 countries. Tanti also owns a majority stake in German wind-turbine maker Repower AG, which has already secured contracts for developing wind-power projects in Canada.

Because of high transportation costs of shipping wind towers and rotor blades, its cheaper to set up manufacturing close to project locations. To build them they need to determine the availability of skilled manpower, the logistical costs and local government support.

In countries such as India, Brazil and Australia, Suzlon doesn't just sell wind turbines, it also designs, engineers and constructs the wind farms. In India Suzlon also builds the transmission lines that connect them to the country's power grid. In countries where they just build turbines, they build everything from scratch: the gearbox, rotor blades, generator, control systems, towers, etc. Everything is built locally by the company to save on shipping costs.

Despite the American recession Suzlon is expecting 20 to 30% growth by 2010.

New Incinerator in Ontario

Ontario is contemplating building a garbage incinerator and has contacted North America's largest incinerator company to build and operate an incinerator in Clarington Ontario that will burn 140,000 tonnes of garbage every year from Durham and York regions.

Covanta Energy Corp., based in Fairfield, New Jersey, operates 35 facilities in the United States, is waiting to be approved to construct the $236-million plant. It will be capable of generating 20 megawatts of power by burning unusable garbage (material that currently can't be recycled or turned into compost) once the facility begins operating in 2013.

(If this feels like a step backwards, you're right. What they should be doing is building a recycling plant that can recycle ANYTHING.)

The Durham council will receive the proposal on April 22 – Earth Day – and a final vote is expected June 24.

The new incinerator will be the first to be built in Ontario in nearly 20 years, and if approved, Covanta would design, get the necessary permits, build and operate the new incinerator under a 20-year contract. They would also get two options for five-year extensions. The plant will also be built with the option to expand to 400,000 tonnes per year... suggesting they may decide to take in more garbage from the Greater Toronto Area.

Covanta will also be paid $14.7 million a year to run the facility and would be paid using federal gas tax revenues.

Covanta has guaranteed that the facility will be able to produce 767 kilowatt-hours of electricity for every tonne of waste processed, the equivalent of how much a small household uses every month. At full operation, that's enough to power nearly 12,000 households for a year. Or 34,000 homes if its expanded to 400,000-tonnes-per-year.

In December 2008, Ontario's Energy and Infrastructure Minister George Smitherman directed the Ontario Power Authority to purchase electricity from Durham-York's proposed incinerator for 8 cents per kilowatt-hour. Sounds silly? The OPA is selling that electricity for less than 6.5 cents/kWh and taking a loss.

In other words the OPA will spend $8.59 million a year... but they will save more than $15 million a year in landfill fees and the millions in transporting residual waste to a landfill.

A future source of revenue could also come from capturing heat from the facility and selling it to surrounding businesses, industry and households as part of a district heating system.

Critics warn the excessive emissions will cause environmental damage and the likelihood it will stifle expansion of recycling programs.

Last year, Pennsylvania's environmental protection department fined Covanta in October for exceeding emission limits, while Michigan residents are pushing for the closing of a controversial Covanta plant in Detroit.

Covanta says plant emissions will be well below provincial standards and the electricity it produces will offset coal-burning generation in Ontario.

So... burning garbage is better than burning coal. So they say. That doesn't make it better overall however. What we really need is better recycling facilities that can recycle EVERYTHING.

And as for offsetting coal-burners... whats the point of all those windmills and solar farms we're building right now unless its to eliminate the use of coal?

White House calls for polar protection

The Obama administration today called for enhanced protection of the Earth's polar regions, proposing mandatory limits on Antarctic tourism and urging increased environmental research there and in the Canadian Arctic.

Opening a two-week conference of parties to the 50-year-old Antarctic Treaty, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the recent collapse of an Antarctic ice bridge was a stark reminder that the poles are gravely threatened by climate change and human activity.

"With the collapse of an ice bridge that holds in place the Wilkins Ice Shelf, we are reminded that global warming has already had enormous effects on our planet, and we have no time to lose in tackling this crisis," she told the first-ever joint meeting of Antarctic Treaty parties and the Arctic Council at the State Department.

The bridge linking the Wilkins shelf to Antarctica's Charcot and Latady Islands shattered over the weekend after two large chunks of it fell away last year. The shelf, formed by thousands of years of accumulated and compacted snow, had been stable for most of the last century before it began retreating in the 1990s.

Originally the size of Jamaica, the shelf on the western side of the Antarctic Peninsula lost 14% of its mass last year alone, according to scientists who are looking at whether global warming is the cause of its breakup.

Average temperatures in the Antarctic Peninsula have risen by 3.8 degrees Farenheit over the past half century, the statement said – higher than the average global rise.

Clinton said the Antarctic Treaty – which also bars military use of the continent – could be a model for improved cooperation and coordination in the Arctic, which is not governed by a similar pact.

"The treaty is a blueprint for the kind of international cooperation that will be needed more and more to address the challenges of the 21st century," she said.

Clinton also formally announced that the United States would be proposing mandatory limits on the size of Antarctic cruise ships and the number of passengers they bring ashore at the treaty conference, which begins later Monday in Baltimore and runs through April 17.

If the Arctic and Antarctic melts its predicted the world's sea level would rise 21+ meters and would flood many major cities.

The Antarctic has 4 remaining ice shelfs. As they disappear mainland ice glaciers will slide into the ocean faster and will speed up rising sea levels.

See Also:
Arctic Ice to vanish by 2013
Flooded Cities by 2013?
Greenland ice melting faster than expected
Ancient Ice Shelf snaps free in Canada

37% of Droughts caused by Global Warming

Global warming is more than a third to blame for a major drop in rainfall that includes a decade-long drought in Australia and a lengthy dry spell in the United States, a scientist said Wednesday.

Peter Baines of Melbourne University in Australia analyzed global rainfall observations, sea surface temperature data as well as a reconstruction of how the atmosphere has behaved over the past 50 years to reveal rainfall winners and losers.

What he found was an underlying trend where rainfall over the past 15 years or so has been steadily decreasing, with global warming 37% responsible for the drop.

"The 37 per cent is probably going to increase if global warming continues," Baines said as he presented his findings at a major climate change conference in Perth Australia.

Four major regions has seen a large decline in rainfall. The affected areas are the continental United States, southeastern Australia, a large region of equatorial Africa and the Altiplano in South America.

At the same time there is two areas in the tropics where rainfall has been increasing – northwestern Australia and the Amazon Basin.

"This is all part of a global pattern where the rainfall is generally increasing in the equatorial tropics and decreasing in the sub-tropics in mid-latitudes," Baines said.

"This is a little bit like the pattern that the (computer) models predict for global warming but this is coming out of the rainfall observations of the past 30 years," added Baines.

The rainfall trend was also accompanied by a trend in global sea surface temperatures (SST), he said, adding he used temperature data going back to 1910.

Sea surface temperatures have also been rising as the atmosphere warms.

"If you take the SST data and analyse that over a long period you can break that up into a variety of components, such a global warming component," he said.

He also looked at the influence on rainfall of major ocean circulation patterns that have a major impact on the world's weather such as the Atlantic conveyor belt that brings warm temperatures to northern Europe.

Two Pacific circulation patterns, including the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, were also studied for their influence on rainfall.

The key in the analysis was to strip out the influence of the El Niño ocean-climate pattern which routinely causes drought in Southeast Asia and Australia and floods in Chile and Peru.

Baines says the Atlantic conveyor belt was 27% to blame for the decreased rainfall, while the two Pacific ocean circulation patterns were 30% responsible.

See Also:
Global Warming in Russia & the North Atlantic
Global Warming: Hurricanes in Europe?
Australian Drought

China joins Earth Hour

This year will be the first time China has joined in on Earth Hour. For environmentalists, it will be one of the most powerful images to see many of China's architectural landmarks suddenly going dark.

The whole point of Earth Hour is to promote environmental awareness and reaching China's 1.3 billion people is certainly a boost to the global environmental movement.

Securing the participation of China's cities in a country that is home to a fifth of the globe's population – and the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide in the world – is a good start.

Organizers of Earth Hour believe China's participation will send a powerful message around the world.

"That two of China's most iconic landmarks – the Shanghai skyline and the Olympic Green – will be part of this year's effort will send a message to the rest of the world that the people of China are committed to taking action on climate change," says Dermot O'Gorman, country director of the World Wildlife Federation, the organization that inspired the movement.

"Ordinary people, too, in many cities have now signed up to switch off," he says.

Beijing and Shanghai aren't just any two cities. Their combined populations total more than 36 million – more than the entire population of Canada. They represent a huge boost to Earth Hour's global effort.

During a briefing in Beijing last week, Angel Gurria, the head of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, said: "No global issue can be addressed properly without China in its midst."

Other major Chinese cities also participating include Hong Kong, Macau, Baoding, Dalian, Nanjing – where a valley of 80 skyscrapers will switch off – and countless smaller cities and towns.

They'll join hundreds of millions others – organizers hope the global total will exceed 1 billion – throughout 84 countries - for the first time.

In Beijing – in restaurants, on campuses and in private homes – there's a nascent enthusiasm about joining a global movement. The city's popular Bookworm, a bookshop and eatery, sent out an email to customers this week inviting them all for a candlelit dinner.

A New Era of Solar Energy in Ontario

A new green-energy law is coming to Ontario, combined with long-term incentives for solar energy producers.

The new law (the Green Energy Act) + incentives has solar corporations clambering over each other. Tempe, Arizona-based First Solar Inc., one of the world's leading suppliers of next-generation solar modules, and solar power supplier Recurrent Energy Inc. of San Francisco are both planning to develop multi-megawatt solar projects in Ontario.

California-based Nanosolar Inc. says it is seriously considering Ontario as the location of a regional assembly plant for its thin-film solar modules. Nanosolar is also working with French energy giant EDF Energies Nouvelles to map out future solar projects in Ontario.

Why? The new laws + new prices the province is willing to pay for solar power will tip the balance in favour of investment in Ontario.

Two other firms are also planning to build solar-cell manufacturing operations in Ontario.

The recent Green Energy Act and a new renewable-power purchase program that offers a generous premium for green power is just a start. The Ontario Power Authority has proposed an European-style "feed-in tariffs" that would see it pay, as part of a 20-year contract, 80.2 cents for every kilowatt-hour of power that comes from a residential rooftop solar photovoltaic system.

(NOTE: Critics will point out that people in Ontario currently pay approx. 7 cents per kWh, so this seems like a ploy by the Ontario Power Authority to jack up electricity prices.)

Long-term contracts under a feed-in tariff model is superior to approaches in the United States that tend to be based on upfront tax incentives that create short-term sales spurts.

In theory as systems grow larger the feed-in tariff would decline. The power authority would pay 71.3 cents for rooftop systems up to 100 kilowatts, dropping to 63.5 cents for systems up to 500 kilowatts and 53.9 cents for anything above that. The largest systems would likely be found on the rooftops of schools, commercial buildings and big-box stores.

The lowest tariff, 44.3 cents, applies to "ground mount" systems that don't exceed 10 megawatts. This would apply to the massive solar farms that sprawl across acres of empty fields.

All prices replace a fixed 42-cent tariff that applied to all system categories that existed under a previous program, which itself was a continental first when introduced two years ago.

So already Ontario is paying extra for green energy, and some customers are willing to pay more for green electricity... but are they willing to pay even more?

These new prices are great news for people wanting to produce electricity in their backyard, and maybe even good for people willing to pay the extra for green energy, but what about regular electricity consumers? They care more about price than whether it is green or not.

Arno Harris, CEO of Recurrent Energy, said the new tariffs makes Ontario an attractive market for his company, which yesterday purchased a project pipeline totalling 350 megawatts from Chicago-based UPC Solar.

Harris said Recurrent and other large developers are taking advantage of the economic downtown to consolidate the market. The "vast majority" of projects acquired from UPC, he says, are based in Ontario.

"Our goal is to develop over 100 megawatts and get it into commercial operation by 2012," says Harris, explaining that economies of scale allow the company to lower costs by placing bulk orders for solar modules.

In early March, First Solar purchased a pipeline of more than 2,000 megawatts of solar projects from Hayward, Calif.-based OptiSolar Inc. in a stock deal valued at $400 million (U.S.). About 10% of those projects are based in Ontario.

Solar developers are pushing for 50 cent tariffs for large land-based solar fields in an effort to lure investment and green-collar jobs. They claim the current prices don't make it profitable enough to get investments to build.

The power authority says the tariffs have only been proposed and could change after eight weeks of consultation with industry players. "Anyone having concerns with the proposed pricing should provide their feedback to the agency," said energy ministry spokeswoman Amy Tang.

But who's going to pay for higher prices? Consumers?

Right now the cheapest alternative isn't to buy green electricity, its to buy your own solar/wind power and make it yourself.

Solar module prices are expected to fall dramatically this year and 2010 as new cheaper/more efficient solar panels come into the market.

Ozone tied to respiratory death rate

Residents of big cities face greater threat to breathing hazards and death due to pollution, a new study finds.

According to the study long-term exposure to ozone in Toronto may be responsible for approx. 20% of all lung-related deaths in the city. The massive new American study on health risks of the common air pollutant compares smog levels in major North American cities and deaths caused by smog.

People who live in cities with smoggy ozone pollution are 25% to 30% more likely to die from lung disease than those living in areas with the cleanest air, researchers reported.

The study, which looked at data tracking 450,000 people over 18 years, suggests the current emphasis on peak ozone days (also known as smog days) as the smog component's major health danger ignores the serious, cumulative perils that breathing it over a lifetime impose.

"It's not just the peaks you should worry about, it's the cumulative, entire ozone season that's important, too," says George Thurston, a professor of environmental medicine at New York University.

"So we can't just sort of hide in our homes on the peak days and avoid the adverse effects of ozone," says Thurston, who directed the air pollution portion of the study.

The report, released today in the New England Journal of Medicine, does not look at Canadian cities, but York University air pollution expert Geoff Harris says Toronto's ozone levels are almost identical with those found in many large cities in the northeast United States.

About 20% of respiratory deaths in these cities can be directly attributable to long-term exposure to the pollutant. Ozone and fine airborne particles are two of the major components of smog. In New York and Washington ozone smog increased the risk of dying of any respiratory ailment, from cancers to a severe asthma attack, by approx. 25%.

In very smoggy Los Angeles ozone increased the risk of dying of any respiratory ailment by about 50%.

Ozone in the upper reaches of the atmosphere helps protect the Earth from the sun's punishing ultraviolet rays. But at ground level, ozone is corrosive is a key player in respiratory fatalities.

Ground level ozone is created by sunlight reacting with nitrogen dioxide and fine particle pollutants emitted by cars, factories and coal-fired generating plants. The resulting triple oxygen molecule (O3) is volatile, and can react with the vulnerable surface of the lung, breaking down the tissue and causing a host of pulmonary conditions.

Doctors have long known that ozone is hazardous. Short-term exposure aggravates asthma symptoms and causes breathing problems. It is especially dangerous for those people who suffer from pre-existing pulmonary conditions such as emphysema.

The study is the first to tease out the relative percentage that ozone exposure contributes to deaths due to smog. The study will give more ammunition to groups like his to argue for tougher pollution standards.

Toronto Public Health says air pollution in general accounts for about 1,700 premature deaths in the GTA and 6,000 hospital admissions each year.

See Also: Pollution in Canada getting worse, statistics show

Sea levels rising faster than predicted

Top climate scientists warned today that rising sea levels could rise twice as much as previously projected in 2007.

Right: NASA Photo of what the Earth would look like if the sea level rose 2 meters.

A 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted a sea level rise of 18 to 59 centimeters by 2100. But scientists meeting today in Copenhagen dismissed those estimates as too conservative, saying new data suggest that sea level rise will exceed 1 meter and happen a lot sooner than previously suggested.

"This means that if the emissions of greenhouse gases is not reduced quickly and substantially, even the best-case scenario will hit low-lying coastal areas housing one-tenth of humans on the planet hard," organizers said in a statement at the three-day congress hosted by the University of Copenhagen.

The melting of polar ice sheets and of glaciers are two big factors that will affect sea levels, they added.

"Unless we undertake urgent and significant mitigation actions, the climate could cross a threshold during the 21st century committing the world to a sea level rise of metres," said John Church of the Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research.

The conclusions of the conference will be presented to politicians meeting in Copenhagen in December 2009 to discuss a new global agreement on greenhouse gas emissions to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.

Some 1,600 reports from nearly 80 countries have been submitted to the conference, many of them pointing to evidence of melting sea ice, melting ice in Greenland, Canada and Antarctica.

Last week a group of scientists at Laval University in Quebec announced arctic ice might melt completely in the Summer of 2013, which combined with melting ice in Greenland would raise sea levels by approx. 7 meters. The same scientists also said it was too late to stop the melting.

See Also:
Arctic Ice to vanish by 2013
Flooded Cities by 2013?
Toronto breaks temperature record, again
Vancouver and Montreal could become flooded
Greenland ice melting faster than expected

Ground temperatures rising in Canada

According to a new Canadian study, global warming has caused ground temperatures across the country to rise over the past few decades, in some cases by as much as a few degrees. The study is the first comprehensive assessment of Canada's shallow geothermal resources.

The study shows that thermal energy can be harvested with geo-exchange technologies and used for heating homes and buildings during the winter. This is good news for homeowners using Geothermal Heating Systems.

"There was this realization that we had a heat pulse going into the ground and it was a function of climate warming. It's really one of the best records of climate warming there is in Canada," said study co-author Stephen Grasby, a research scientist at the Geological Survey of Canada. "Depending on where you are ground temperature has increased by a few degrees."

"We actually have this opportunity to retrieve that heat energy trapped by global warming, to use that heat that's gone into the ground to offset future use of non-renewable energy sources," says Grasby.

The study, published in the journal Natural Resource Research, assessed ground temperatures across Canada down to 250 meters to get a sense of the potential resource. The researchers found that the heat energy in the first 50 meters alone was roughly equivalent to the commercially recoverable energy in the oil sands. Thats a lot actually, suggesting that if Canadians wanted to invest in Geothermal technology it would be more profitable than the Alberta Oil Sands.

Low-temperature geothermal technologies, often called geo-exchange systems, are capable of efficiently extracting warmth from the ground at shallow depths to heat homes and building. High-temperature geothermal systems tap heat kilometers below the Earth's surface to produce steam that is used to turn turbines and generate electricity.

"It equates to more than 190 million barrels of oil equivalent," said Grasby. He emphasized that the resource is spread out across the entire country, making it impractical to harvest more than a fraction of the total energy potential.

"But even if a small percentage of it is recoverable it's still going to potentially make a marked impact on renewable-energy supply," said Grasby. "Even if you end up with one or two per cent of it, you've still got one or two million barrels equivalent (of oil). It's a big number."

Temperatures typically increase at lower depth, but the researchers found that the temperature differences at 50 meters, 100 meters and 200 meters are getting smaller because shallower depths are heating up.

"The shallow rock mass of Canada has been shown to store a large component of heat due to recent climatic warming," according to the study.

"This suggests that we may have similar heat energy from the upper 50 meters compared to deeper levels depending on the location and relevant recent history (of) surface temperature changes."

The geological survey is working on another study that will attempt to estimate the portion of shallow geothermal resource that's easily recoverable, such as with heat-pump systems. Another study to be published later this year that will estimate the country's potential for generating electricity from geothermal resources at a temperature of 150 degree Celsius and higher.

Alison Thompson, executive director of the Canadian Geothermal Energy Association, said the geological survey studies are welcome and long overdue, but the analysis is based on ground temperature data collected prior to 1985, which is when funding for the federal geothermal energy program was pulled.

Thompson said new data must be collected to get an accurate estimate and to raise the profile of geothermal energy, which despite its massive potential is largely overlooked in Canada as a renewable source of electricity generation.

The geothermal association, which has set the goal of developing 5,000 megawatts of geothermal power projects in Canada by 2015, has identified 33 areas that need to be studied but has found it challenging to raise the required funding to carry out such studies.

"We feel the rest of the country doesn't understand how big this resource is," said Thompson. "For $1 million we could be off and running and really answer all the questions that politicians have. This would be a game-changer for the industry."

Grasby said interest in the area is growing, particularly in Alberta, where the oil and gas industry's drilling and ground-fracturing expertise can be easily applied to geothermal projects. "You just need a regulatory framework to support it," he says.

Canada is the only country located on the Pacific "Ring of Fire" that has NOT developed its high-temperature geothermal resources on a commercial scale. The United States, Japan, China, Russia all have developed their geothermal resources. Many industry experts argue that geothermal could play an important role in reducing natural gas consumption in the oil sands, making it cheaper to get oil out of the tar sands.

The Pembina Institute, a Calgary think tank, released a report in January that estimated there were 21 billion gigawatt-hours of energy released every year below the surface of Alberta at depths of less than 5 kilometres.

"Even with the conservative assumption that only 0.5 per cent of this potential is recoverable, it represents the equivalent of roughly 14 million megawatts of generating capacity," or 1,100 times the current generating capacity of all existing power plants in Alberta, according to the report.

The report cited lack of public awareness as the key barrier to developing the resource.

The geothermal association hopes to raise that awareness level on April 22nd in Vancouver, where it will hold the industry's first major geothermal energy conference in decades. More than 250 people are expected to attend the event, which is timed to coincide with Earth Day.

Arctic Ice to vanish by 2013

The Arctic is warming up so quickly that the region's sea ice cover could vanish as early as summer 2013, decades earlier than previously predicted, says scientist Warwick Vincent.

Vincent, director of the Centre for Northern Studies at Laval University in Quebec, said recent data on the ice cover "appear to be tracking the most pessimistic of the models", which indicate an ice free summer in 2013.

"2013 is starting to look as though it is a lot more reasonable as a prediction. But each year we've been wrong – each year we're finding that it's a little bit faster than expected," says Vincent. "We're losing, irreversibly, major features of the Canadian ice scape and that suggests that these more pessimistic models are really much closer to reality."

The Arctic is warming at twice the rate of the rest of the world and the sea ice cover shrank to a record low in 2007 before growing slightly in 2008. But at the same time 2008 also record warm weather in parts of the arctic, with temperatures rising to 20 degrees Celsius (68 degrees Fahrenheit) compared to the usual 5 degrees. In 2008 five ice shelves along Ellesmere Island in Canada's Far North, ice which is more than 4,000 years old, shrunk by 23% according to satellite analysis.

In 2004 a major international panel forecast the ice could vanish by 2100. In December 2008 some experts said the summer ice could last until 2020 or 2030.

When the ice disappears shipping companies will be able to make short cuts through the Canadian and Russian Arctic, which also contains enormous reserves of oil and natural gas.

"I was astounded as to how fast the changes are taking place. The extent of open water is something that we haven't experienced in the 10 years that I've been working up there," Vincent said after making a presentation in the Canadian Parliament.

Its now not a question of whether the ice will melt, it a question of when.

Its also a question of what should we do about it? Ice melting in Greenland and the Antarctic could raise sea levels dramatically by 7 meters (22 feet) or more and flood many of the world's port cities.

See Also:
Rising Sea Levels
Climate Change will effect Economy
Ancient ice shelf snaps free from Canada
Global Warming in Russia & the North Atlantic
7 Environmental Problems That Are Worse Than We Thought
The Theory of Rapid Climate Change

Alternative Energy

Geothermal Heating Systems

Is Biofuel the Fuel of the Future?

The Eco-Car Battleground

The Hydrogen Equinox

Hydrogen Power

Building a Wind Turbine Factory in Ontario

Solar Power becoming Profitable

The Solar Powered Myth

Looking for Geothermal Installation price estimates? Try GeothermalInstallers.ca

Ontario to fast-track wind turbine projects

Ontario municipalities will lose the power to decide how close wind turbines can be to residential properties and environmentally sensitive areas under proposed green-energy legislation being tabled Monday.

The new rules, a blow to NIMBYism (NIMBY = Not In My Back Yard), will also ensure that developers of wind and other renewable-energy projects get construction permits within six months.

It's all part of Ontario's plan to streamline approvals for such projects, create certainty for developers and attract more investments that will create green-collar jobs in the province – more than 50,000 jobs over three years.

Energy and Infrastructure Minister George Smitherman, speaking yesterday at the Toronto Board of Trade, said the patchwork of municipal guidelines that has evolved over the years has created a cumbersome process for energy developers. He compared it to the patchwork of municipal rules regarding public smoking before the province created an Ontario-wide standard. Similarly, the proposed Green Energy Act will create a provincial standard for wind turbine sites and a "one-window, one-permit" approach to approvals.

"I see municipalities grappling, struggling, with how to balance the desire of local wind proponents against the desire of some local residents," Smitherman said in an interview. "A patchwork quilt is not the best way forward."

The setback distance for turbines – how far they must be from a home – will be determined through consultation with the public and the environment ministry. Possible distances will be discussed next week.

Other items expected to be in the proposed legislation:

The province's Standard Offer Program, which sets standard pricing for electricity from small renewable energy projects, has been scrapped. It will be replaced by a more ambitious program that accommodates wind, biomass, hydroelectric and solar projects.

Homeowners will soon have access to direct grants and low-interest loans to help pay for technology and appliances that make their homes more energy efficient.

New policies will support co-operatives of farmers, homeowners and businesses that want to invest in renewable-energy projects.

The province will also stimulate development of offshore wind farms on the Ontario side of the Great Lakes with the aim of pursuing power-purchase contracts with developers.

Recycling Humour

The following is recycling humour by The Order of the Stick: