Invasive species are a major concern and IMO is addressing this matter through ballast water regulations. The USA and most Great Lakes states have introduced even more stringent regulations than IMO, all this to preserve the ecosystem of the Great Lakes.
Canada and the US are doing a great job in controlling compliance of the ballast water measures in place, through a joint inspection program of ballast water tanks in ships, before they are allowed to enter the St. Lawrence Seaway System in Montreal. The hope is that no more nuisance species find their way into the worlds largest freshwater system.
While the entry door for foreign invaders is closing on this side, the backdoor in Chicago will remain open for the Asian Carp to enter the Great Lakes and potentially wreak havoc in this ecosystem.
On January 19, 2010 the US supreme court rejected a request by a coalition of US States to force the US Army Corps of Engineers to close the lakeside navigation locks of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. One economic argument was to protect the $ 7 Billion annual fishery on the Great Lakes, as this giant leaping fish can upset entire ecosystems.
Dennis Bryant made me aware of Representative Camp's H.R.4472 bill in the US House of Representatives, directing the Secretary of the Army to take action with respect to the Chicago waterway system to prevent the migration of bighead and silver carps into Lake Michigan, and for other purposes.
Maybe there is a chance this back door to Lake Michigan will be closed for invasive species?
Friday, November 20, 2009
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Mercury; who would have thunk?
Continuing from yesterday, I learned the following:
I didn't know that coal fired power stations are today's largest emitters of mercury in Canada. According to government data, in 2003, the coal-fired electric power generation emitted an estimated 2,695kg of mercury. Electric power generation (EPG) is the largest single remaining source of mercury emissions in Canada from human activities. Therefore, the Environment Ministers have agreed to set a mercury Canada-wide standard (CWS) for this sector, with the goal of reducing mercury emissions from existing plants and ensuring new plants achieve emission levels based on best available technologies economical achievable, or equivalent.
There are two sets of targets. Provincial caps on mercury emissions for coal-fired EPG representing a 65% reduction by 2010; and the capture rate for new plants based on best technologies, as mentioned above.
A possible second phase of the CWS may explore the capture of 80% or more from coal burned for 2018 and beyond.
I find it interesting that the utilities have a reasonable time frame to lower mercury emissions, whereas the proposed ECA does not afford much time to domestic marine for conversion to cleaner fuels.
I didn't know that coal fired power stations are today's largest emitters of mercury in Canada. According to government data, in 2003, the coal-fired electric power generation emitted an estimated 2,695kg of mercury. Electric power generation (EPG) is the largest single remaining source of mercury emissions in Canada from human activities. Therefore, the Environment Ministers have agreed to set a mercury Canada-wide standard (CWS) for this sector, with the goal of reducing mercury emissions from existing plants and ensuring new plants achieve emission levels based on best available technologies economical achievable, or equivalent.
There are two sets of targets. Provincial caps on mercury emissions for coal-fired EPG representing a 65% reduction by 2010; and the capture rate for new plants based on best technologies, as mentioned above.
A possible second phase of the CWS may explore the capture of 80% or more from coal burned for 2018 and beyond.
I find it interesting that the utilities have a reasonable time frame to lower mercury emissions, whereas the proposed ECA does not afford much time to domestic marine for conversion to cleaner fuels.
Monday, November 16, 2009
North American ECA
I have previously commented on the relatively limited impact a Great Lakes ECA would have on the air quality. I also disagreed with the statement contained in the proposal to IMO that emissions from land based sources had been addressed in Canada and the USA, before addressing marine emissions.
Here is the opening paragraph from "Sulphur Dioxide Controls for Small Utility Boilers" in the most recent "EM" magazine from the Air & Waste Management Association:
"There are more than 420 coal-fired boilers in the United States with capacities from 50 to 300 megawatts (MW) that currently are not equipped with a selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system, for NOx control, a flue gas desulfurization system, or a mercury control system. Many of these boilers, which collectively represent almost 60 gigawatts (GW) of installed capacity, are difficult to retrofit for deep emission reductions, because of space constraints or unfavorable economics of scale. Considering many boilers are over 50 years old, they are increasingly vulnerable to retirement in the face of progressively more stringent environmental regulations."
The installed capacity of these coal fired boilers is equivalent to the total installed power of 10,000 ships with 6MW (8,000HP) installed power! These power stations can meet the Clean Air Act by burning LS coal with S-content of 0.6-1.0%.
With the EPA proposed rulemaking Great Lakes ships will have to burn LS distillate, while some 420 power stations in the USA burn coal without SOx scrubbing!
Here is the opening paragraph from "Sulphur Dioxide Controls for Small Utility Boilers" in the most recent "EM" magazine from the Air & Waste Management Association:
"There are more than 420 coal-fired boilers in the United States with capacities from 50 to 300 megawatts (MW) that currently are not equipped with a selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system, for NOx control, a flue gas desulfurization system, or a mercury control system. Many of these boilers, which collectively represent almost 60 gigawatts (GW) of installed capacity, are difficult to retrofit for deep emission reductions, because of space constraints or unfavorable economics of scale. Considering many boilers are over 50 years old, they are increasingly vulnerable to retirement in the face of progressively more stringent environmental regulations."
The installed capacity of these coal fired boilers is equivalent to the total installed power of 10,000 ships with 6MW (8,000HP) installed power! These power stations can meet the Clean Air Act by burning LS coal with S-content of 0.6-1.0%.
With the EPA proposed rulemaking Great Lakes ships will have to burn LS distillate, while some 420 power stations in the USA burn coal without SOx scrubbing!
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Global Warming Time Bomb
Some of the papers Dr. James E. Hansen published on global warming heightened my awareness of the problem we, as a society, face.
The IEA in the WEO 2009 suggests that we should make an effort to stabilize atmospheric CO2 at 450ppm by 2030.This morning, when I browsed Jim Hansen's web-page I found a descending view. Hansen in an October presentation to the "Club of Rome Global Assembly 2009" suggests a safe Level of CO2 is <350ppm.
Since IMO is addressing GHG emissions, I thought Hansen's speech might be of interest.
The IEA in the WEO 2009 suggests that we should make an effort to stabilize atmospheric CO2 at 450ppm by 2030.This morning, when I browsed Jim Hansen's web-page I found a descending view. Hansen in an October presentation to the "Club of Rome Global Assembly 2009" suggests a safe Level of CO2 is <350ppm.
Since IMO is addressing GHG emissions, I thought Hansen's speech might be of interest.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
GHG Emissions
Next month the world leaders will gather in Copenhagen to address climate change.
The scientists who believe man-made GHG emissions are a threat to the environment, suggest a safe carbon-dioxide limit in the atmosphere might be around 360 parts per million. Achieving this limit would impact too significantly on our way of living, as we would need to cut back fuel consumption too drastically.
The International Energy Agency released their 2009 World Energy Outlook November 10, 2009. The IEA states that a 450ppm CO2 limit can be achieved by 2030. The 450 scenario would keep the global temperature rise at around 2 Centigrade above pre-industrial levels. The IEA states that to achieve this scenario, fossil-fuel demand would need to peak by 2020 and energy related carbon-dioxide emissions to fall to 26.4 gigatonnes in 2030 from 28.8Gt in 2007.
To achieve this, the IEA estimates cumulative incremental investments of $10.5 trillion is needed in the 450 scenario in low-carbon energy technology and energy efficiencies by 2030. These investments costs would be offset by economic, health and energy-security benefits. On the other hand, each year of delay adds $ 500 billion to mitigation costs between today and 2030.
The scientists who believe man-made GHG emissions are a threat to the environment, suggest a safe carbon-dioxide limit in the atmosphere might be around 360 parts per million. Achieving this limit would impact too significantly on our way of living, as we would need to cut back fuel consumption too drastically.
The International Energy Agency released their 2009 World Energy Outlook November 10, 2009. The IEA states that a 450ppm CO2 limit can be achieved by 2030. The 450 scenario would keep the global temperature rise at around 2 Centigrade above pre-industrial levels. The IEA states that to achieve this scenario, fossil-fuel demand would need to peak by 2020 and energy related carbon-dioxide emissions to fall to 26.4 gigatonnes in 2030 from 28.8Gt in 2007.
To achieve this, the IEA estimates cumulative incremental investments of $10.5 trillion is needed in the 450 scenario in low-carbon energy technology and energy efficiencies by 2030. These investments costs would be offset by economic, health and energy-security benefits. On the other hand, each year of delay adds $ 500 billion to mitigation costs between today and 2030.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
