CleanTechnica is the #1 cleantech-focused
website in the world. Subscribe today!


Uncategorized valero_spreads_misinformation

Published on December 24th, 2009 | by Susan Kraemer

20

Another Economy Might be Beginning Escape From Fossil Energy Dependence

Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

December 24th, 2009 by  

Here’s yet another reason to ignore the fear-mongering of fossil fuel companies. Another nation has reduced greenhouse gas emissions, while not taking an economic hit. Canada’s top 10 industrial greenhouse gas emitters reduced their emissions by 9% in a year, while the economy grew in the meantime by 0.5%.

Syncrude Canada alone accounted for a startling 18% reduction, among the top ten, by simply investing in efficiency technologies to reduce the heat required to extract oil. The US Department of Energy this year demonstrated a similar technology to the oil industry here. Ormat co-produces electrical power on oil-fields by tapping into the waste heat fluids to produce a temporary man-made  “geothermal” power.

[social_buttons]

This is further indication of a historical trend showing that cutting greenhouse gas emissions doesn’t have to damage economies. While Canada did no worse than before while switching to more renewable energy —  some economies that adopt more renewable energy are actually thriving:

Europe’s results, for example, as tallied by the greenhouse gas registry at the European Comission show that Europe is on track to not just meet but to exceed its Kyoto goals to get 8% reductions below 1990 levels by 2012. The first fifteen signatories (EU-15) will meet and exceed their 8% target  and 10 of the remaining 12 member states will meet and exceed their 6% target below 1990 levels by 2012.

Total EU-27 emissions are now estimated to be 13.6% lower than the base year level 1990, yet

Europe’s economy grew 44% from 1990 to 2007.

A New Energy Finance study has some interesting insight into Europe’s success. Within just five years of the introduction of its greenhouse gas emissions-trading system; the cost of greenhouse gases is now a factor in investment decisions within the fossil industry.Dirtier energy plants are beginning to be closed down, and replaced with cleaner energy sources. Kyoto succeeded.

”By 2020 the European generating fleet will be materially cleaner than it is today,” said Guy Turner, the research firm’s director of carbon market research.

And China is now investing $9 billion every month on clean energy. It is about to host a tradeshow in the largest solar powered building on the planet.

China initially invested $30 billion in renewable energy last year… and its economy had rebounded at 8% by mid 2009. Since this is happening even as exports drop sharply to a recession hit world, one can only assume that internal renewable energy infrastructure is accounting for some of this growth.

Image: ClimateProtectionCampaign

Source: Clean  Break

More from Susan Kraemer: Journalists on Twitter

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.



Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


About the Author

writes at CleanTechnica, CSP-Today, PV-Insider , SmartGridUpdate, and GreenProphet. She has also been published at Ecoseed, NRDC OnEarth, MatterNetwork, Celsius, EnergyNow, and Scientific American. As a former serial entrepreneur in product design, Susan brings an innovator's perspective on inventing a carbon-constrained civilization: If necessity is the mother of invention, solving climate change is the mother of all necessities! As a lover of history and sci-fi, she enjoys chronicling the strange future we are creating in these interesting times.    Follow Susan on Twitter @dotcommodity.


Related Posts



  • sanctuary765

    I remember when we used to be ‘first”.Now China and the EU are ahead f us, and the US is trying to prevent the EU from insisting our planes be cleaner or pay a fee..I think they should pay up..if they refuse to comply..and why not clean up the air? People need jobs, why not make then this way?

    • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

      Completely agree. It’s a shame the U.S. is willing to go down to #3 or further without even attempting to compete.

  • Uncle B

    Canadian Assholes! Install a huge nuclear reactor, use Saskatchewan’s uranium, extract the oil, all of it with nuclear fuel, sell all of it to the hungry U.S. and laugh all the way to the bank! Canada has uranium coming out its nostrils and other orifices, and no market for it! Why not make the Saudi sized Oil Sands pay off big time and use Nuclear -Electric power to cleanly extract every drop of oil wasting none in processing, and sell it while we still have a market. The U.S. will go electric soon due to lack of other resources there, We can stop-gap that long enough to make Canada even richer! Build immense reactors, make heat, clean up the oil sands, and walk away with a cleaner environment! May be the huge sale of oil-sands to China will provoke such massive, sensible, eco-friendly, investment in Canada? Will Yankee Doodle allow this? He stopped the Avro Arrow cold by tweaking Diefenbaker’s asshole! and he was a conservative sell out artist just like Harper the traitor is, and the conservatives are in power for long as the proroguing of parliament lasts – not long now, you slimy sell-out bastards! Maybe an NDP government will show the way for Canada, and make the Yanks quiver in their Corporatist boots.

  • Uncle B

    Canadian Assholes! Install a huge nuclear reactor, use Saskatchewan’s uranium, extract the oil, all of it with nuclear fuel, sell all of it to the hungry U.S. and laugh all the way to the bank! Canada has uranium coming out its nostrils and other orifices, and no market for it! Why not make the Saudi sized Oil Sands pay off big time and use Nuclear -Electric power to cleanly extract every drop of oil wasting none in processing, and sell it while we still have a market. The U.S. will go electric soon due to lack of other resources there, We can stop-gap that long enough to make Canada even richer! Build immense reactors, make heat, clean up the oil sands, and walk away with a cleaner environment! May be the huge sale of oil-sands to China will provoke such massive, sensible, eco-friendly, investment in Canada? Will Yankee Doodle allow this? He stopped the Avro Arrow cold by tweaking Diefenbaker’s asshole! and he was a conservative sell out artist just like Harper the traitor is, and the conservatives are in power for long as the proroguing of parliament lasts – not long now, you slimy sell-out bastards! Maybe an NDP government will show the way for Canada, and make the Yanks quiver in their Corporatist boots.

    • sanctuary765

      The US should not allow, or participate in the sand oil project, it’s filthy and we don’t need it. The oil companies have stock piles and the price isn’t going down. It’s just another way to ruin our environment.Perhaps you’re a Fox news listener? Neither China, or the US should touch the Sand oil project…and if China does..we all have the same air! It’s not as if there is a magic curtain to protect any of us from this filthy oil ruining the planet. Regardless, the US should not do it..China doing it, is no reason for us to either.

  • JJ

    On cap n trade, I remain highly dubious and side with Hanson and funnily enough the oil companies (ouch). It seems to be little more than a shell game that allows the current situation to continue. Better still call it like the Catholic church taking money for indulgences.

    The article link doesn’t really change my mind either. I think physicists and engineers have a low opinion of economics and politics so having economists steer the ship when actually nature and physics are really driving, gives me the creeps. I just don’t think economists feel the same urgency about the situation.

    Given that, and that Europe has had cap n trade working there for some time, we will see what it achieves here too.

  • JJ

    On cap n trade, I remain highly dubious and side with Hanson and funnily enough the oil companies (ouch). It seems to be little more than a shell game that allows the current situation to continue. Better still call it like the Catholic church taking money for indulgences.

    The article link doesn’t really change my mind either. I think physicists and engineers have a low opinion of economics and politics so having economists steer the ship when actually nature and physics are really driving, gives me the creeps. I just don’t think economists feel the same urgency about the situation.

    Given that, and that Europe has had cap n trade working there for some time, we will see what it achieves here too.

  • JJ

    @J

    If you are referring to those water2gas schemes that use hydrolyzes that suck power from the alternator or battery to split water, then it is probably a good thing they are not permitted. Those are bogus devices that cannot improve ICE efficiency without stealing the energy from the battery. These have been debunked in lots of places. If you use one, the hydrogen might look like its improving mileage for a while, until the battery is drained, then it has to be charged up by the alternator and quickly demands more power from the engine than it ever gave in the hydrogen split. Its simple laws of thermodynamics.

  • JJ

    @J

    If you are referring to those water2gas schemes that use hydrolyzes that suck power from the alternator or battery to split water, then it is probably a good thing they are not permitted. Those are bogus devices that cannot improve ICE efficiency without stealing the energy from the battery. These have been debunked in lots of places. If you use one, the hydrogen might look like its improving mileage for a while, until the battery is drained, then it has to be charged up by the alternator and quickly demands more power from the engine than it ever gave in the hydrogen split. Its simple laws of thermodynamics.

  • Charles Vismeg

    J; alternate methods to combust in current engine designs will require other technical alterations in the power train system, likely including the current O2 sensor’s viability.

    Cap & Trade is an interesting concept as has built in incentive for switching to renewable energy sources, although it remains to be seen how this concept pans out in the US. I think it’s worth trying.

  • Charles Vismeg

    J; alternate methods to combust in current engine designs will require other technical alterations in the power train system, likely including the current O2 sensor’s viability.

    Cap & Trade is an interesting concept as has built in incentive for switching to renewable energy sources, although it remains to be seen how this concept pans out in the US. I think it’s worth trying.

  • Susan Kraemer

    I am. A regular carbon tax does not place any limit or cap on total world or national emissions, a cap and trade plan does.

    Krugman has a good explanation:

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/unhelpful-hansen/

    Look at how effectively the EPA has wrestled down SOX and NOX with Cap and Trade:

    http://cleantechnica.com/2009/12/12/cap-trade-cut-emissions-50-in-20-years/

    • sanctuary765

      The Republicans have cut the EPA to the bone and fought them tooth and nail. We need someone on the side of humanity and life..If a Tax does this, even a little, then why not..They can’t make people pay for all of it, they have to change..or we die..It’s that simple. Any thing that pushes corrupted officials to move ahead, and move away from filthy oil, is fine w/me.

  • J

    I also do not agree with cap and trade. It is a negative concept.

    I would rather see an concerted government/industry/public effort to remove barriers and incentivize energy efficiency in a positive way.

    One example: many fuel efficient after market devices such as hydrogen generators can not be legally used on a gasoline vehicle because to make them work properly would involve disabling the oxygen sensor unit. A $250,000 fine by the EPA

    Your cap and trade government in action!

  • J

    I also do not agree with cap and trade. It is a negative concept.

    I would rather see an concerted government/industry/public effort to remove barriers and incentivize energy efficiency in a positive way.

    One example: many fuel efficient after market devices such as hydrogen generators can not be legally used on a gasoline vehicle because to make them work properly would involve disabling the oxygen sensor unit. A $250,000 fine by the EPA

    Your cap and trade government in action!

  • Susan Kraemer

    Also – “In general, Syncrude has been focusing on improving energy efficiency and had succeeded in increasing efficency per barrel extracted by 17 per cent over the last 2 years.

    This has resulted in $100 million in savings.

    Improving efficiencies in developing new tech in mechanical energy instead of thermal energy.

    Syncrude has also developed “low-energy extraction” which cuts the temperature required to separate bitumen from 80C to 40C.”

  • Willravel

    I want gas to be heavily taxed, but I’m still not convinced Cap and Trade is the best method to go about doing this.

  • Willravel

    I want gas to be heavily taxed, but I’m still not convinced Cap and Trade is the best method to go about doing this.

  • Susan Kraemer

    I am. A regular carbon tax does not place any limit or cap on total world or national emissions, a cap and trade plan does.

    Krugman has a good explanation:

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/unhelpful-hansen/

    Look at how effectively the EPA has wrestled down SOX and NOX with Cap and Trade:

    http://cleantechnica.com/2009/12/12/cap-trade-cut-emissions-50-in-20-years/

  • Susan Kraemer

    Also – “In general, Syncrude has been focusing on improving energy efficiency and had succeeded in increasing efficency per barrel extracted by 17 per cent over the last 2 years.

    This has resulted in $100 million in savings.

    Improving efficiencies in developing new tech in mechanical energy instead of thermal energy.

    Syncrude has also developed “low-energy extraction” which cuts the temperature required to separate bitumen from 80C to 40C.”

Back to Top ↑

© 2014   Sustainable Enterprises Media, Inc.



Back to Top ↑