My belief is that EVERY ONE OF US contributes to the enhancement or destruction of the earth and it is up to each of us to make our own contributions back to the planet. As the saying goes "Inch by inch, it is a cinch: Yard by yard, it's very hard". I chose to contribute by recycling (lots), buying products that don't have a lot of packaging, not idling my car when I'm waiting and talking to others about my and their efforts to help the environment. I learn and implement much from the efforts of others. Canada has taken a tremondous step forward and leading role to help the environment by signing the Kyoto Accord. As with any new decree, things (i.e. employment issues, other impacts) will eventually shake themselves out and settle but not without much controversy first. I'm optomistic that the settled process will resemble the views of all participants in this issue but our environment will be better off as a result of all the discussion this will evoke. If nothing else, it will make people think about the environment, which is a good thing. Next, we can talk to others in the world about how they can do their own "small" things to help improve their area of the earth. "Inch by inch..."

A question: How do we get more Canadians to make the connections between their lifestyle choices and their individual contributions to climate change?

Ann

[quote="ruth jenkins"]My belief is that EVERY ONE OF US contributes to the enhancement or destruction of the earth and it is up to each of us to make our own contributions back to the planet.]

I've heard the statistic used that consumers represent 80% of emissions associated with fossil fuel consumption. If this is an accurate statistic, then it's definitely time for each of us to do our part. Ann asks how we can make Canadians aware of the connections between their lifestyle choices and their individual contributions. Pembina Institute's web site, www.mykyoto.ca is an excellent source. It contains a list of numerous ways in which we can individually make contributions to reductions in GHG emissions:

*Switch 10 light bulbs to compact fluorescents
*Install low-flow showerheads
*Always buy ethanol-blended gasoline
*Get a home energy audit
*Turn down and wrap my hot water heater
*Always wash my clothes in cold water
*Replace an older, major appliance with a new high-efficiency model
*Weatherize all my windows and doors before next winter
*Always stick to speed limits
*Compost my food scraps and yard waste
*Install programmable thermostats
*Leave my car at home once a week
*Meet 20% of my electricity needs with green power
*Take the train for all intercity business trips less than 500 km
*Car-pool or take public transit five days a week
*Purchase a hybrid vehicle or one with low fuel consumption

Posting the declaration made available on this site onto corporate intranets, I believe, would be a great step in educating the Canadian public. I'm certain that most of us want to be a part of reversing climate change, and being aware of what small steps can be taken by each of us will potentially empower us to do so, inch by inch.

Charlotte

[quote="Ann Dale"]A question: How do we get more Canadians to make the connections between their lifestyle choices and their individual contributions to climate change?

Ann

Great thoughts... a collaborative effort to work our small parts...

In another thread, this idea has spontaneously started, i.e., the appeal to seek those "small parts" that we can all play...(to do lists)

When one gages the stakes, these quite helpful activities and small fixes around the home and daily lifestyle - seem as minor convenience issues.

Yet in fact, they are the very beginnings of a conscious conservation awareness acted out in each of us, and a life change management regiment to model.

There are hundreds of such tips out there, and the reality may be that if we all choose actively to adopt even a few, positive change will follow.

Perhaps there is a bit too much focus outward upon government and industry, when we as consumers actually have equal obligation, that is often overlooked.

To those conscious conservationists in the home, I applaud you!

das

Why can't the automotive industry start mass producing hybrids or fossil free automobiles? Why doesn't a company like Ford, Chrysler etc partner with a company like Ballard and set up the infrastructure for hybrids or fuel cells? Why doesn't th Canadian Government establish very stringent emission regulations? Take the lead from states such as California, who have very strict emission standards.

I think the government should stop governing by polls and take a leadership role in this area. You can't tell me that there isn't a good economic basis for doing this. It won't happen overnight but if we start now we can get the ball rolling. Pehaps Kyoto is the start.

Now what am I going to do with my 1978 Ford Mercury Zephyr thats in mint condition, has very low mileage, but is sure to fail every emission test known to man. How I love that car!!!

Jay

"Inch by inch, it is a cinch: Yard by yard, it's very hard" ...good one Ruth. I also like Charlotte's list and the website suggestion. I think there are lots of people out there that know it would be a good thing to take these steps. What is going to help each one of us to be willing to do it do you think?

I applaud people’s efforts and agree it will take many changes by many to have an impact, and yes it starts with one. On the other hand, I do not feel that educating and appealing to people to do “the right thing” will generate a critical mass. Yes, there are thousands to do what is convenient and not too costly (this would be my category) but for significant change to take place, for people to change habits of years that only a big stick or carrot will work.
Human beings resist change when the benefits are apparent and short term, so when the benefits are of a generational time period some other mechanisms will be required. As previously mentioned a combination of tools would probably give some balance and best results. Of course the first area to get people’s attention is in the pocketbook with some form of Carbon Tax with the proceeds going to fund the carrots in the equation such as improved transit or other incentives to reduce greenhouse gases.
I am sure these ideas have been proposed before and it would be interesting to know if there have been actual studies done on when people would change their behaviour and if they find it more palatable if the penalty charge is directly applied to making the situation better.

I've noticed a fair bit of news recently about the Bush administration's request for over a billion dollars to be spent on hydrogen fuel cell research over the next few years. I've also heard that one of the methods of producing the hydrogen needed for the fuel cells that will be investigated involves extracting it from coal/fossil fuels. Correct me if I'm wrong, but does this not mean that greenhouse gases will still be produced, only in a slightly different way?

And Jay, this might interest you - according to an article I just read at http://www.eetuk.com/tech/news/OEG20030207S0042
"Ballard Power Systems Inc. (Vancouver, British Columbia), which pioneered much of the fuel cell development now being employed by auto makers, is working with Ford, DaimlerChrysler, Honda and Nissan on fuel cell programs. "

Charlotte

[quote="j1morrison"]Why can't the automotive industry start mass producing hybrids or fossil free automobiles? Why doesn't a company like Ford, Chrysler etc partner with a company like Ballard and set up the infrastructure for hybrids or fuel cells? Why doesn't th Canadian Government establish very stringent emission regulations? Take the lead from states such as California, who have very strict emission standards.

I think the government should stop governing by polls and take a leadership role in this area. You can't tell me that there isn't a good economic basis for doing this. It won't happen overnight but if we start now we can get the ball rolling. Pehaps Kyoto is the start.

Now what am I going to do with my 1978 Ford Mercury Zephyr thats in mint condition, has very low mileage, but is sure to fail every emission test known to man. How I love that car!!!

Jay[/quote]

Here's a quote from the Washington Post (Sunday, December 1, 2002)

"Informal estimates by congressional staff and Washington think tanks of the costs of an invasion of Iraq and a postwar occupation of the country have been in the range of $100 billion to $200 billion. If the fighting is protracted, and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein blows up his country's oil fields, most economists believe the indirect costs of the war could be much greater, reverberating through the U.S. economy for many years"

It would appear that the Bush administration is willing to invest much more in securing fossil fuel reserves than funding alternative fuel cell research.

In light of this:

Is Kyoto irrelevant to the reduction of GHG emissions?
Is it more about political legacies, than a catalyst for change?
Are we burdening ourselves with targets whose impacts will not be felt?
Do we need to start over with a "Made in Canada" solution that is both progressive and that recognizes previous accomplishments?

Inquiring minds want to know....

[quote="Gordon"]Here's a quote from the Washington Post (Sunday, December 1, 2002)

I like that "Made in Canada Solution" But will governments (at all levels) get on with the program? I am not sure that they will. Pethaps Kyoto is forcing the issue in some respects.

John

Hi John,

Like most emotionally charged topics, Kyoto attracts a lot of attention from the opposite ends of the viewpoint spectrum. It is often difficult to hear from the middle ground - especially in the media as the middle ground doesn't make for exciting headlines. The notion that "there is no story until something is wrong" dominates the mass media.

It is unfortunate that there was not a more comprehensive public consultation process. The choices of Kyoto, or not Kyoto has placed constraints on the debate that, in my opinion, has undermined the discovery of more innovative solutions.

G.

I cannot remember who told me this the other day, but a change that has a major long term impact should be designed and executed as if it were to sit on the back burner.

When you suggest that we are calling for a change in habits - you are asking people to make fundamental changes to their daily practice. Once a behavior is habitual, it may take years to change. When a populace has a habit - we might be looking at multi-generational change.

Tunde

[quote="DBrenner"]I applaud people’s efforts and agree it will take many changes by many to have an impact, and yes it starts with one. On the other hand, I do not feel that educating and appealing to people to do “the right thing” will generate a critical mass. Yes, there are thousands to do what is convenient and not too costly (this would be my category) but for significant change to take place, for people to change habits of years that only a big stick or carrot will work.
Human beings resist change when the benefits are apparent and short term, so when the benefits are of a generational time period some other mechanisms will be required. As previously mentioned a combination of tools would probably give some balance and best results. Of course the first area to get people’s attention is in the pocketbook with some form of Carbon Tax with the proceeds going to fund the carrots in the equation such as improved transit or other incentives to reduce greenhouse gases.
I am sure these ideas have been proposed before and it would be interesting to know if there have been actual studies done on when people would change their behaviour and if they find it more palatable if the penalty charge is directly applied to making the situation better.[/quote]

Hi Gordon: As we discussed earlier in class - it is too bad that we do not a more effective way to engage the public in debate. The e-dialogue forum is pretty elitist and computer "haves." Such a forum may end up with groupthink rather than true consensus.

Besides asking the right question, those stewarding the process may want to engage the public through sponsoring such e-dialogue as part of the everyday class situation. It would make a great exercise for high school students to get a feel for e-government as part of civics / social studies class. Not only would the students add to the discussion board, but we would be modelling a new form of discourse.

Tunde

excpert
[quote="Gordon"]Hi John,

It is unfortunate that there was not a more comprehensive public consultation process. The choices of Kyoto, or not Kyoto has placed constraints on the debate that, in my opinion, has undermined the discovery of more innovative solutions.

G.[/quote]

Hello,apologies for the pervious misspost
some info on hydrogen and fuel cells-If hydrogen is produced from any fossil fuel, there is a co2 byproduct (now waste). Through some research I have done I discovered that the well to wheel greenhouse gas emissions of fuel cell powered vehicles using natural gas as a feedstock fuel produces roughly 250 grams per mile of co2 equivalent, internal combustion engines produce 420 g/mCO2e.
Another way to produce hydrogen is via electrolysis which breaks water into hydrogen and byproduct oxygen. Electrolytic hydrogen from a hypothetical grid mix utilizing 100% natural gas combined cycle combustion plants is roughly380 g/mCO2e. not much advantage. Renewable energy if used to produce hydrogen yields a negligable amount roughly 10 - 20 g/mCO2e. However, to produce economic hydrogen, you need electricity feedstock costs under $0.05 kW/h, as well as certain electrolyzer cost targets, achievable by volume production.

The magic of hydrogen is that it is in everything, it can be produced from waste biomass, from photovoltaic energy, and from nuclear power plants (low atmospheric emissions and manageable wastes) via electrolysis or an other integrated method that I have not examined. Two other most promising methods for hydrogen production are photobiological and photocatalytic, each are very low emission techniques of the future.

Fossil fuels can and will help us reach a future solar hydrogen infrastructure. first there is a transition period during which fuel cells and hydrogen technologies can develop. In turn the fuel cell and hydrogen technologies can add diversity and reliability to the existing energy system. Combine this with information technology and you have an energy system that provides instant feedback.

Some solid oxide type fuel cells are fuel flexible, able to run utilizing either internally reformed natural gas, or pure hydrogen. PEM fuel cells, the ones Ballard makes require hydrogen for fuel.

What I like about the hydrogen fuel cell option is that in a distributed configuration, these technologies can afford maximum flexibility to an organization/cooperative to combine future fleet refueling options with stationary power for peak and emergency backup. Hydrogen and fuel cell technologies offer a tremendous opportunity to use our energy much more efficiently, some say that using a fuel cell in place of conventional power generation is at least 50% more efficient. Ballard/Ebara just introduced a 1 kW combined heat and power module that at optimum (rarely achieved), runs at 94% efficiency. Fuel cell vehicles offer a 250% efficiency gain over traditional ICE engines.
I agree with the comment that governments must be more proactive. To me kyoto is about energy efficiency and creating new market rules that allow a shift from an extractive model to a regenerative model. These emerging technologies offer policy makers a golden opportunity to enable the triple interface between technology, ecology, and the economy and resolve some of the tension between environmental values and economic values.

As for the zephyr, you will probably be able to drive it for many more years, or park it and hopefully it will soon become an antique relic of great value to future fossil collectors :-).

[quote="Charlotte"]I've noticed a fair bit of news recently about the Bush administration's request for over a billion dollars to be spent on hydrogen fuel cell research over the next few years. I've also heard that one of the methods of producing the hydrogen needed for the fuel cells that will be investigated involves extracting it from coal/fossil fuels. Correct me if I'm wrong, but does this not mean that greenhouse gases will still be produced, only in a slightly different way?

And Jay, this might interest you - according to an article I just read at http://www.eetuk.com/tech/news/OEG20030207S0042
"Ballard Power Systems Inc. (Vancouver, British Columbia), which pioneered much of the fuel cell development now being employed by auto makers, is working with Ford, Daim

I believe that e-dialogues, although somewhat elitist at the moment because of the digitial divide, may in the future turn into a new way of communicating, and perhaps even thinking. In terms of groupthink, I think the reverse is true, in the absence of physical cues about socio-economic status and power relations, more diverse and direct voices are 'heard'. In particular, people who are more introverted may feel 'safer' in such electronic forums, in a public cyberspace where everyone is equal?

Ann

[quote="Tunde"]The e-dialogue forum is pretty elitist and computer "haves." Such a forum may end up with groupthink rather than true consensus.

Besides asking the right question, those stewarding the process may want to engage the public through sponsoring such e-dialogue as part of the everyday class situation. It would make a great exercise for high school students to get a feel for e-government as part of civics / social studies class. Not only would the students add to the discussion board, but we would be modelling a new form of discourse.]

Tunde

excpert
[quote="Gordon"]Hi John,

It is unfortunate that there was not a more comprehensive public consultation process. The choices of Kyoto, or not Kyoto has placed constraints on the debate that, in my opinion, has undermined the discovery of more innovative solutions.

G.[/quote][/quote]

I believe that e-dialogues, although somewhat elitist at the moment because of the digitial divide, may in the future turn into a new way of communicating, and perhaps even thinking. In terms of groupthink, I think the reverse is true, in the absence of physical cues about socio-economic status and power relations, more diverse and direct voices are 'heard'. In particular, people who are more introverted may feel 'safer' in such electronic forums, in a public cyberspace where everyone is equal?

Ann

[quote="Tunde"]The e-dialogue forum is pretty elitist and computer "haves." Such a forum may end up with groupthink rather than true consensus.

Besides asking the right question, those stewarding the process may want to engage the public through sponsoring such e-dialogue as part of the everyday class situation. It would make a great exercise for high school students to get a feel for e-government as part of civics / social studies class. Not only would the students add to the discussion board, but we would be modelling a new form of discourse.]

Tunde

excpert
[quote="Gordon"]Hi John,

It is unfortunate that there was not a more comprehensive public consultation process. The choices of Kyoto, or not Kyoto has placed constraints on the debate that, in my opinion, has undermined the discovery of more innovative solutions.

G.[/quote][/quote]

Reading Zev's description of hydrogen fuel cells made some lights go on for me. That is one of the best brief summaries I have seen!

Zev mentions that fuel cells can be used for power generation. I'm assuming that means that an organization could use fuel cells in combination with a renewable energy system to produce the hydrogen and power. If I've read that right, how soon we will be able to use fuel cells to generate power in this way?

Michael

[quote="zev fisher"] ... Hydrogen and fuel cell technologies offer a tremendous opportunity to use our energy much more efficiently, some say that using a fuel cell in place of conventional power generation is at least 50% more efficient. Ballard/Ebara just introduced a 1 kW combined heat and power module that at optimum (rarely achieved), runs at 94% efficiency. Fuel cell vehicles offer a 250% efficiency gain over traditional ICE engines. [/quote]

Michael,
You ask the good, 64 million dollar question (adjusted for inflation, year 2000 dollars and discounted at 8%). Unfortunately my crystal ball tends to fog on questions of social uptake of technology. If I had a difinitive answer I could also posistion my RSP and achieve a sustainable early retirement within short order.

It is a complex question:
The link between renewable resources/ hydrogen generation and power production has been demonstrated. The question becomes one of economics, can it be done competitively, and where are the leverage points to apply these systems, and of course always political will, for example: zero emission legislation for vehicles. Public Policy must tilt the playing field to promote conservation and self generation of green power and sustaianble processes. We cannot expect these systems to compete in their nascent phase in a market where waste is unpriced and biomimetic cyclic processes unrewarded.

How soon will these systems be embraced by organizations depends on the organizations requirements, its leadership and the regulatory climate it operates in. To apply these systems at the organization level, you have to ask what the value of power reliability, quality, emergency backup is to the functioning of the organization. Each organization will have different criteria.
Applying H2 technologies also makes the organization somewhat flexible and moves the organization from being grid dependent to grid flexible. This new flexibility can enable the organizaton's load to be shed from the utility peak load. This is a significant utility benefit that can be priced in many creative ways, to offset the cost of the technology.
If I was to put this into a demonstration project (which I am actively seeking to do, any one have any suggestions?), I would try to negotiate a lower off peak purchase rate for green grid power. The organization would save on the base cost of energy over a certain time of the day, utilize the lower price electricity produce hydrogen on site. I would design an energy price structure that would make the economics work. In an energy market that is characterized by constricted supply during peak times, this may be and excellent strategy to promote proliferation of fuel cells.

Organizations that position themselvs with H2 technologies to benefit from time of day energy pricing will also be able to apply building integrated solar technologies, such as thin film PV roofing and cladding products as they increase in efficiency and lower in price over the next decades.

For some organizations there may be opportunities for self generation of power now. Municipalities and regional districts are excellent examples of organizations that may have proximity to good renewable power sites have multiple platforms where these systems are needed, as well as fleets of vehicles.

As you can see, this paradigm shift has multiple layers.
I find it facinating how many shifts this technology enables, and it can be incrementally accomplished because of the scalable nature of the systems.

Zev,

After reading your post yesterday, I came across the following article in a Eugene, Oregon newspaper: http://www.registerguard.com/news/2003/02/16/ed.col.robertson.0216.html

Is this akin to the kind of project you're hoping to do? What strengths, weaknesses, or inaccuracies do you see in the descriptions given?

-Dwight Owens.

[quote="zev fisher"]Michael,
If I was to put this into a demonstration project (which I am actively seeking to do, any one have any suggestions?), I would try to negotiate a lower off peak purchase rate for green grid power. The organization would save on the base cost of energy over a certain time of the day, utilize the lower price electricity produce hydrogen on site. I would design an energy price structure that would make the economics work. In an energy market that is characterized by constricted supply during peak times, this may be and excellent strategy to promote proliferation of fuel cells.
[/quote]

Dwight,
Thanks for the link to the Oregonian article.

I think that it is dangerous to be overly optimistic about the price of hydrogen. I thought that the reality of 1-2 cent/kWh was a little low for the average consumer or small business. Also, the capital cost of the conversion technology is still high- hand built by PhD's. Once mass production is achieved the price is sure to fall to being competitive. There is a demonstration phase to get through first so people can see it work and experience the technology.

With regard to conversions of an ICE to a dual fuel mixture. It may have some really good applications in busses, trucks, fleet vehicles and stationary peak and backup power units that run off propane, NG or diesel. Hybrid ICE/hydrogen seems like a transition phase, but for the average person, I don't see the point if we can have the option to jump to fuel cell powered cars within 10 years. I like the seamless transition strategy. If that is where we want to be let's make the right moves now and avoid wasted capital and false starts.

Otherwise the vision that the article is capturing seems sound and achievable over time. Governments need to set targets and provide market incentives to achieve strategic infrastructure placements. Your DOE has an excellent program in place and has run scenarios around uptake of the technologies.