A climate success story: How Alberta got off coal power

[shtferbrains]

BC is not even close! LOL Is this an example of your "alternate" facts?

Below are the 15 countries that exported the highest dollar value worth of coal during 2019.

Australia: US$44.4 billion (37.5% of total coal exports)
Indonesia: $21.5 billion (18.2%)
Russia: $16 billion (13.5%)
United States: $9.8 billion (8.3%)
Colombia: $5.2 billion (4.4%)
Canada: $5.2 billion (4.4%)
South Africa: $4.8 billion (4.1%)
Netherlands: $3.2 billion (2.7%)
Mongolia: $3.1 billion (2.6%)
Mozambique: $1 billion (0.9%)
China: $932.8 million (0.8%)
Poland: $622.8 million (0.5%)
Philippines: $460.6 million (0.4%)
Kazakhstan: $449.7 million (0.4%)
Belgium: $217.3 million (0.2%)

http://www.worldstopexports.com/coal-exports-country/ http://www.worldstopexports.com/coal-exports-country/

Thats an interesting chart Chuck.
Thanks for posting that.
As you say Canada is almost significant.
Can you find one that shows who uses it and what the heck they do with it all in these times when everyone is signed on to the Paris agreement?
How much does Canada use and when we get to zero who will notice? Besides us of coarse.


When you post the chart on who is using it maybe include one of the top industrial economy's and we can watch which way Canada is going.

Thanks in advance.

[chuckChuck]

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/11/north-dakotas-largest-power-plant-set-to-close-as-owner-bets-on-wind.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/11/north-dakotas-largest-power-plant-set-to-close-as-owner-bets-on-wind.html

North Dakota’s largest power plant looks set to close as the owner bets on wind energy
Published Mon, May 11 202010:17 AM EDT Updated Mon, May 11 202011:57 AM EDT
Anmar Frangoul

Great River Energy plans to shut down the two units of Coal Creek Station in the second half of 2022.
Not-for-profit cooperative adds it is also “willing to consider opportunities to sell the plant.”

A 1,151-megawatt (MW) coal power station in North Dakota is set to be retired after it was deemed to have “lost value compared to other alternatives in recent years.”

Announcing the decision at the end of last week, electric power supplier Great River Energy said it planned to shut down the two units of Coal Creek Station in the second half of 2022, adding that it was also “willing to consider opportunities to sell the plant.”

Located roughly 50 miles north of Bismarck, the Coal Creek Station facility has a workforce of 260 and uses approximately 22,000 tons of lignite each day. According to Great River Energy, it is the largest power plant in North Dakota.

“Coal Creek Station is operated efficiently, safely and with pride by a dedicated and talented staff,” David Saggau, Great River Energy’s CEO and president, said in a statement. “We will make every effort to minimize impacts on our employees and the communities through this transition.”

Looking ahead, Great River Energy, which operates as a not-for-profit cooperative, is aiming to purchase over 1,100 MW from new wind energy projects by late 2023, an investment of more than $1.2 billion. Among other things, it is also planning to modify a coal and natural gas-based power plant so that it’s fueled solely by natural gas.

While other parts of the world, such as Britain, have seen their “reliance on coal for electricity” reach very low levels in recent years — it’s fallen from 70% in 1990 to under 3% today, according to the government — the U.S. is a different story.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

well, its complicated , lol ,lmao
he obviously didn't think it through , and was started by a conservative govt , lol,lol,lol

And the switch is motivated by economics, since gas is now cheaper than coal.

[Guest]

Wind energy suffers tough year in Europe with 12 nations failing to install a single turbine Wind energy suffers tough year in Europe with 12 nations failing to install a single turbine

[chuckChuck]

And this success story has absolutely nothing to do with wind or solar. Switching from one fossil fuel to another. Not quite clear why Chuck is supporting this let alone advertising it to everyone?

"North Dakota’s largest power plant looks set to close as the owner bets on wind energy"

Apparently in North Dakota it does. One of our closest neighbors still burns lots of coal but wind is replacing some of it.

[Robertbarlage]

Wind power is supporting oil everyday! It's actually a great thing for oil industry.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

"North Dakota’s largest power plant looks set to close as the owner bets on wind energy"

Apparently in North Dakota it does. One of our closest neighbors still burns lots of coal but wind is replacing some of it.

I could have swore that the headline and article and thread title all said Alberta?

[Hamloc]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/article-a-climate-success-story-how-alberta-got-off-coal-power/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/article-a-climate-success-story-how-alberta-got-off-coal-power/

A climate success story: How Alberta got off coal power

In 2015, roughly half of Alberta’s electricity came from burning coal. Mostly thanks to coal, greenhouse gas emissions from power generation were nearly 50 megatonnes a year.

That number is equivalent to two-thirds of the emissions from the entire oil sands. It’s equal to the emissions from every single car and truck in Ontario and Quebec. Yet no Hollywood star ever showed up to protest at one of the coal plants in Parkland County, west of Edmonton.

And now, here’s the good news: By 2023, Alberta will stop burning coal for power. It will accomplish this seven years ahead of schedule.

It’s a significant milestone, and no random miracle. It’s the market in action, and the direct result of carefully drawn public policies – namely, the carbon tax.

The story stretches back to 2007, when Alberta instituted North America’s first carbon tax on industry. It was, however, only a small levy, whose extra costs on coal power didn’t make much difference.

The turning point came in 2015. A newly elected New Democratic Party government announced an ambitious climate strategy. Getting off coal by 2030 was a central pillar.

Emissions from power generation were down to 44 megatonnes in 2017. The following year, the NDP’s tougher rules kicked in, and emissions immediately fell. The rules set a pollution target for all power plants to hit, and the dirtier an operation, the more it would pay. Burning coal suddenly became a lot more costly and power companies responded, mostly by turning to natural gas. In 2018, the use of coal plummeted – and emissions fell by a quarter in a single year, to 33 megatonnes.

The transition has not been free or painless. The end of coal reverberates in communities that were built on the industry, and government programs have invested money in hard-hit places like Parkland County.

Alberta is also paying $1.4-billion in compensation to three power companies, money coming out of the province’s carbon tax revenue. Power rates, meanwhile, have remained reasonable.

Despite challenges, the plan is working. The final dominos are starting to fall. In November, TransAlta said it would stop burning coal at the end of 2021. In December, Capital Power said it will be off coal by 2023, as it spends $1-billion to convert two plants to gas.

And that’s it. Like Ontario before – the province went coal-free in 2014 – Alberta’s power will be liberated from coal.

The transition also survived a change in provincial government. Before Jason Kenney became Premier, he was a fierce defender of coal. In late 2016, he told Facebook followers that “Jason digs coal” and said the coal power shutdown would only “stroke the egos of extreme environmental professional activists.”

But even as Mr. Kenney in office has railed against Ottawa’s consumer carbon tax, he quietly kept the NDP’s strict carbon rules for power generation.

The quick end of coal in Alberta is being made possible by a ready supply of cheap natural gas. This is progress, but in the long run, more will be needed. That’s because, although natural gas is less polluting than coal, it still produces about half as much greenhouse gas emissions per unit of energy. A bigger search for alternatives, from the obvious solar and wind to the currently less viable nuclear and carbon capture, will be necessary. Research from the Pembina Institute shows that a combination of clean power technologies compete well against natural gas.

A rising carbon tax helps, too.

Other provinces with big parts of their electricity sector powered by coal – Saskatchewan, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia – need to look to Alberta’s template. There are doubts the national coal-free goal of 2030 will be met.

It is important to appreciate what has been accomplished: a lot, in a short time. By 2023, power generation in Alberta will be producing a bit more than 20 megatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions a year – less than half the 2015 level. That’s a reduction equivalent to shutting down a third of the oil sands, or taking every car and truck off the road in Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia.

In the span of half a decade, a bad news climate story became a good news climate story. As Canada aims for net-zero emissions by 2050, it’s a reminder of what’s possible.

Very disappointed in national news media, the NDP legislated in 2015 the end of coal generated power by 2030, it is really false to credit the carbon tax, it was legislation that ended coal power not the carbon tax. Look at Ontario same situation, coal generation was legislated out of existence by 2014 before any carbon tax was implemented. The author is worried about Nova Scotia, if he actually did some research he would find that of all the provinces in Canada Nova Scotia has reduced it GHG emissions more below 2005 levels than any other province. B.C., a province where a carbon tax was implemented in 2008, has actually increased ghg emissions from 2005 levels. Very curious Chuck2 why you continually bring up this topic?!

[blackpowder]

If opinion pieces in the Globe or CBC speak it, it is the Gospel.
Stupid people are dangerous.

[TASFarms]

Just wait until all the coal plants are hooked on natural gas. Then the price of natural gas will make the early 2000 gas price look cheap. Ten years from now they will be switching back to coal. It wasn’t that long ago that trans gas was shutting compressors off because the their caverns were just about empty. They didn’t have enough storage to make it through a really cold winter. Non Essential gas users were getting turned off.

Greenies are stupid even if they claim to be a farmer with an engineer degree

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Just wait until all the coal plants are hooked on natural gas. Then the price of natural gas will make the early 2000 gas price look cheap. Ten years from now they will be switching back to coal. It wasn’t that long ago that trans gas was shutting compressors off because the their caverns were just about empty. They didn’t have enough storage to make it through a really cold winter. Non Essential gas users were getting turned off.

Greenies are stupid even if they claim to be a farmer with an engineer degree

But the good news is that they are just converting existing coal plants to gas, still sitting beside giant coal deposits. Not blowing them up like Australia or california is doing. swtching back as economics dictate is still possible.

[oneoff]

Saskatchewan increases carbon price for large emitters to $40 per tonne
Social Sharing

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/saskatchewan-carbon-pricing-for-large-emitters-new-1.5851622 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/saskatchewan-carbon-pricing-for-large-emitters-new-1.5851622

Small oil and gas companies in Saskatchewan can now opt for provincial carbon pricing instead of federal
Mickey Djuric · CBC News · Posted: Dec 22, 2020 12:03 PM CT | Last Updated: December 22
The Saskatchewan government has increased its carbon pricing on heavy emitters. (Jason Franson/The Canadian Press)

The Saskatchewan government has raised the carbon price for large emitters to $40/tonne, an increase from $30/tonne.

However, companies that are not compliant with emission standards won't have to settle their bill until next year.

The province says the money will be collected in October 2021 and will go into the Saskatchewan Technology Fund, which is one of three compliance funds under the province's Prairie Resilience climate change plan.

"It's there for the use of regulated emitters to lower their emissions at their facilities," said David Stevenson, director of climate change policy and programs with the Ministry of Environment. "So money comes in and they can apply for that money to come back out and make reductions at their facilities."

The province says it is not calling this price on carbon emissions a "carbon tax" because it is just one way larger industries can choose to reduce their emissions.

The other options include purchasing offset credits through a cap and trade, or meeting performance standards.
Small oil and gas companies can now opt for provincial carbon pricing

Large emitters in Saskatchewan operate under a different carbon-pricing system that exempts them from the federal carbon tax. This is because their emissions are priced under the provincial standards.

Companies that emit more than 25,000 tonnes of CO2e were already provincially regulated. However, now small upstream oil and gas companies can now choose to opt into the province's plan over the federal program.

This offers smaller companies flexibility, Stevenson said.

"While many of the oil and gas facilities are quite small, each pump for example doesn't emit much, but as an aggregate we do. So what we allowed the oil and gas sector to do is aggregate all those facilities together," Stevenson said.

According to Stevenson, there are 66 large-emitting facilities registered, along with 24 large aggregate facilities containing more than 10,000 individual facilities.

Stevenson said the government is anticipating another 200 facilities to join the program in small groupings.

"It provides that shelter from the carbon tax, and it allows for companies to make these reductions in a way that suits them best," Stevenson said. "So they can choose to either pay into a technology fund, they can choose to buy an offset credit, or they can choose to use a best performance credit if they earned one, or can buy one from someone else."
Greenhouse gas offset program delayed to 2022

The province's greenhouse gas offset program was scheduled to launch in January 2021, but the launch has been pushed back to 2022.

"With COVID we haven't been able to do the engagement with the public and stakeholders like we had planned," Stevenson said.

The program — which is still being developed — will issue offset credits for the sequestration or reduction of greenhouse gases. Those credits then could be sold to other organizations to account for their emissions.

"For example, we plan on developing an offset protocol for landfill gas emissions. So if you have a landfill and it's emitting methane, you can convert that to electricity or burn that methane off, and you can earn a credit."

The province anticipates the offset program will result in a 10 per cent reduction in emissions.

Just preserving this for posterity in anticipating that those responsible may get to eat 95% to 100% of it if it turns out to be false. Can't find what its based on in CanLII nor Sask websites; and it seems pretty drastic changes from what the posted Reg7 of Oil and Gas Conservation still says. Appication (Sec 3 )"used to say These regulations apply to every business associate all of whose Combined Potential Emissions are greater than 50,000 tonnes of CO2 (equivalent) per year....Sask regulates primar resource production and has a well documented Methane Reduction Plan (some 45% less than 2015 level)...and a schedule of $20 per CO2 equiv tonne for 2021 rising rising to $50 per tonne each year and staying at $50 until 2030.

I trust this news story is accurate to the letter. Note the link given in the news release above returns a "Sorry" after displaying the beginning of the reported story. We'll see......

[oneoff]

Those who rely on cut and paste have an obligation to disclose what they know beyond their firmly held convictions. To only republish opinions that which can easily be found with a google search; but only mention parts which supports their firm belief; does not do justice to any non debatable facts that exist.

Please point me to the original evidence that backs up that CBC news report.

[oneoff]

Quote However, now small upstream oil and gas companies can now choose to opt into the province's plan over the federal program. Unquote
Just noticed the word upstream. Also sure that reporter doesn't necessarily know if he's headed upstream of down a rabbit hole.

[sofa.king]

Maybe chucky should check and see how much power alberta now buys from montana coal fired power plants. The left are ***in idiots.