October 2013 Issue (files are in PDF format)
Question put to the OPA Management Oct 4 webinar, and subsequently forwarded to the Minister:
The Following question was put to the OPA Management webcast a few minutes ago. Their response was that it should be redirected to you.
"Submissions for the LTEP have been registered under the Environmental Bill of Rights, which sets out the procedures to be followed for each submission:
1) How many submissions were registered?
2) Will the responses deal with both electrical and thermal energy plans or just electricity?
3) My own submission proposed that both electrical and thermal energy needs should be met via a single solution that would eliminate GHG's from the buildings sector and save billions of dollars. How will such cross-ministry EBR responses be managed?
The EBR submission referred to is available at http://kanata-forum.ca/ltep-sub.pdf
Illustrations of the technology were provided in a presentation made to the staff of Hydro Ottawa, for which the slides can be seen at http://kanata-forum.ca/hydro-ottawa.pdf
NOTE: A reply has been received from Minister Chiarelli - see the Nov. issue.
Dave Wilson forwarded a related comment to me:
"Significantly, although the 100-year GWP is by far the most widely used, the IPCC drops this mini-bombshell 86 pages into the report:
There is no scientific argument for selecting 100 years compared with other choices (Fuglestvedt et al., 2003; Shine, 2009). The choice of time horizon is a value judgement since it depends on the relative weight assigned to effects at different times.
The IPCC reports that, over a 20-year time frame, methane has a global warming potential of 86 compared to CO2, up from its previous estimate of 72. Given that we are approaching real, irreversible tipping points in the climate system, climate studies should, at the very least, include analyses that use this 20-year time horizon."
Ontario is in danger of pursuing a truly disastrous course that will radically raise the levels of GHG's and that will also waste billions of dollars. The former problem is explained in considerable detail in the attached link, which should be required viewing for anyone who is concerned about our future:
Extraction of shale gas (Ctrl-Click to open in a separate window)
Dr. Ingraffea's numbers do not include the methane that will reach the surface after the wells have ceased their production. The process is so new that there is no experience at all re. such post-production releases, which might take years to reach the surface. However, there is no reason to expect that the rock or soil between the shale layer and the surface will seal the gas, or that the drill holes can be permanently sealed. The most probable consequence is that this post-production escape will be even larger than the already unacceptable releases reported by Dr. Ingraffea.
Acidification of the oceans. Changes in the atmosphere are not the only effects of GHG's, including CO2. The changes that are occurring in our oceans may be equally serious.