Discussion 2 – Support for Cleaner Fuels (Clean Transportation)



Support for Cleaner Fuels – Low Carbon Fuel Standard

Using lower-carbon fuels in our vehicles is one of the easiest ways to make transportation cleaner. For drivers, it is effortless: you fill your tank the same way you always have, but generate less carbon pollution.

B.C.’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), which ensures a supply of cleaner fuels, has been in place since 2008, encouraging suppliers to use methods such as blending renewable with traditional petroleum-based sources to lower carbon intensity.

Under current regulations, by 2020, fuel suppliers must decrease the average carbon intensity of their fuels by 10%, compared to 2010 levels.  As part of the clean growth strategy, the province is proposing to increase that requirement to 15 percent by 2030. The government could consider raising it to 20% when they review the standard again in 2020.

A number of actions could be taken between 2020 and 2030 to support this change.  These include:

  • tax exemptions for blends of renewable fuels,
  • support in developing the commercial production of renewable and low carbon fuels in the province,
  • programs for industry and fuel suppliers to promote investments in infrastructure such as renewable fuel blender pumps and storage tanks, and
  • a centre of excellence for biofuels that leverages the work of the BC Bioenergy Network.

In the long term, we can produce more low-carbon fuels in B.C. and advance related clean tech industries. Commercial-scale production of clean fuels will require continued investment and research, with a renewed focus on clean synthetic fuels and converting organic materials such as forest and agricultural residues into renewable crude oil and natural gas that can be processed in B.C.

Question:

  • What other options could government consider to support the long term shift to lower carbon fuels?

Sort

85 responses to “Discussion 2 – Support for Cleaner Fuels (Clean Transportation)

    User avatar
    [-] Myna

    The elephant in the room.
    The REAL problem is the Govt’s catering to the auto industry for decades instead of providing for the public innovative public transit.
    This overuse of the personal vehicle for transportation has been at enormous cost to our environment, our social mental and physical well being.
    The Govt should be charging people who choose to drive a vehicle as a means of personal transportation.
    That extra money should be put into a public transit fund.
    Also auto companies should be helping to pay for ALL infrastucture costs associated with the use of personal automobiles. This includes health costs as well. both physical and mental.
    There is really no need for everyone to own a vehicle or 2 or 3.
    Govts can support community carshare programs so that if a vehicle is needed it is available.
    This would free up congestion and pollution problems,fewer accidents and emergency response and hospital beds,and medical expenses.
    Our neighborhoods would become quieter less stressful places to live in.
    We need to think and enact options to driving that encourage people to quit the drive everywhere habit.

    1
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Laurie

    I have mentioned that BC LNG is 27% worse re greenhouse gasses than the best coal burning technology China can build. This is because of all the methane (natural gas) leakage from fracking, piping, flaring/venting, LNG plants, shipping (if the tanker is old), old gas wells, etc. Methane is a very powerful greenhouse gas, much worse than carbon dioxide.

    The source of this information is David Hughes, highly respected Canadian geoscientist. Here is an article from an interview of D Hughes that contains this information.

    http://www.squamishchief.com/news/local-news/is-lng-better-than-coal-in-china-1.2169579

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Craig

    Please remove the carbon tax on 100% Biodiesel from waste sources as it should not apply to a fuel made from a natural food product.
    Phase out all subsidies and support for the fracking industry and LNG at all levels of government.

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Sarah

    ●A Paper of Intent needs to show at the outset figures from comparative/ progressive air quality monitoring & product usage stats, along with any [interim] results of current/ previous measures set — eg. B.C.’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard [in place since 2008] — to determine their effectiveness in reducing BC’s measurable C02/ emissions counts/ & inform which specific actions/ measures/ rulings should be taken that will most effectively reduce BC’s C02/ dangerous emissions levels.

    ●Proof of consultation/ info-gathering from this sector’s top experts/ professionals/ watchdogs in creating this Paper would help establish legitimacy of Intent, set goals/measures that ensure real progress/ results & outline specific plans for their application –including plans mapping out their actualization — to ensure their success.

    ●As David Suzuki’s column in July 2018’s B.I.V. mag reported, despite Govt’s stated intentions in the past few decades BC has “increased exploration and development, continued to build infrastructure that locks us in to fossil fuels for years to come, increased greenhouse gas emissions and pollution, and failed to conserve energy and develop clean energy to the extent necessary to prevent catastrophic global climate change… At some point, the phrase [‘we won’t get off fossil fuels overnight’] just becomes an excuse for Procrastination. .” In other words, the minimal expectations given as ‘requirements’ up til now — eg. “by 2020, fuel suppliers must decrease the average carbon intensity of their fuels by 10%, compared to 2010 levels.  As part of the clean growth strategy, the province is proposing to increase that requirement to 15 percent by 2030..”: Expert scientific info shows unanimously that, given the cumulative nature of C02 these [unlegislated?] numbers are totally inadequate, keep industry’s incentives for required transformation at their same ineffectual status-quo levels, virtually guarantee ever-increasing rise of C02/pollution levels, failure to meet reduced emissions counts per Canada’s signed Paris Accord agreement, & a woeful dearth of any proper science-based commitment to a clean, livable, low-carbon future.

    ●ALL those
    ●The intentions outlined in this Paper show such an unacceptable ‘laissez-faire’ laxity that can only induce panic nformed BCers should be aware of these facts about the proven cumulative effect of C02 in our environment: https://grist.org/climate-energy/two-reasons-climate-change-is-not-like-other-environmental-problems/.

    ●Improvements in transportation should emphasize broad expansion & use of public transportation — not just ‘encourage’ use of cleaner fuels without proper details supporting such measures taken to that end (if any), which nevertheless facilitate increased use of personal vehicles!? EG. HOW ABOUT Electrification & reinstatement of the former ‘Inter-urban’ line, which once connected outlying areas like Chilliwack with Vancouver by rail!? The problem of traffic jams & increased personal-vehicle use is still not solved by current measures, & requirements must increase to make a difference.

    ●Too much of the burden of emissions/footprint reductions still rests with consumers & not with those who can make a much bigger difference & need far more regulation to ‘do the right thing’: ie. Businesses & industry.

    ●Increases in BC’s C02/emissions levels have @ least partially resulted from Govt’s inaction & failure to properly monitor/ regulate industries’ effects/ ops/ performance vis-a-vis environment: Any Govt. legislation in place now has clearly failed to bring measurable changes to justify their continuation, & needs a much more ambitious approach to prove serious ‘Intent’ re. a thriving future.
    Eg. USE OUR CRITICALLY NEGLECTED, VALUABLE HUMAN RESOURCE OF EXPERTS/ INNOVATORS/ SCIENTISTS IN THEIR FIELDS AS CLOSE CONSULTANTS, TO BACK INTENTS & ENSURE RESULTS RE. EMISSIONS GOALS.

    ●Any serious plans to transform BC into widespread use of clean, renewable fuels should consider GEOTHERMAL as a highly efficient & viable, 100% renewable source of electrical energy that requires minimal land use & already boasts extensive application by reputable BC-based companies focussed solely on its specific development that would benefit from Govt. $$/ incentives..

    ●Biofuels have been successfully harvested from waste (compost/manure etc.) that already releases methane & C02 into the atmosphere, rather than from trees & potential food: putting money into this renewable, viable solution rather than giving concessions to polluting, water-wasting industries like fracking/mining would show Govt is serious about reducing our impact, not just appeasing BCers.

    ●Preventing return of forest/ agricultural waste to the soil ought to be properly researched/studied as to repercussions on natural ecosystems before a major bioenergy strategy is installed

    ●Old-growth forests must be protected, per Ancient Forest Alliance: http://www.ancientforestalliance.org/

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Cathy

    Ban diesel fuel.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Lisa

    support the intention to add a 2030 target to the low carbon fuel standard.

    Recommend a targeted 20 % cut in carbon intensity by 2030, rather than 15%. Better to set the bar high and have systems in place to relax should cost of compliance prove too high.

    reintroduce the AIrCare system to ensure people maintain their vehicles.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Jack

    Phase out all subsidies and support for the fracking industry and LNG at all levels of government. Shift all of that financial subsidy/support into incentives for clean energy start-up companies and existing research and development, so as to prioritize green energy production and storage from hydro, solar, wind, tidal, and geothermal sources.

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Peter

    Develop and implement hydrogen fuel cell technology. The cleanest form transportation is active transportation so more funds should go to pedestrian and cycling infrastructure which would serve to reduce traffic congestion, greenhouse gas emissions and heath care costs.

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] David

    I believe the Provincial Government needs to provide additional support and incentives for renewable and low carbon fuels. This should be a priority as (A) transportation accounts for a major portion (39%) of GHG emissions and (B) the ability for the public to support climate change initiatives by simply purchasing lower carbon gas and diesel would significantly increase positive public perceptions of the whole climate change initiatives.

    The problem to me is that the fuel distribution system is controlled by only a few players. The recent price hike this past spring and summer illustrates how narrowly controlled the system is. Although Parkland Refining is apparently making changes to accommodate renewable feedstock I am very skeptical if these will be sufficient to meet the demand aas I have heard no public discussion of this as a total solution o the challenge of the low carbon fuel standard. I have not heard of other initiatives by the traditional fuel supply companies to meet the requirements of the low carbon fuel standard. Thus I am doubtful that significant advances can be made toward meeting the lower carbon fuel standard unless the government takes steps to allow and encourage the participation of non-traditional players to part of this market.

    Given that 2020 is only a short time away I would suggest that one approach would be for the government to set up an internal taskforce to meet with the existing suppliers and determine if they can meet the 2020 deadline. If not, then the taskforce would go on to meet with both the traditional and non-traditional suppliers to come-up with a program where-by supply from the non-traditional sector can be blended into the existing supply network. Pricing would obviously be a consideration but there are, for example, existing methanol to gasoline plants in other parts of the world so we are not talking about the non-tradional sector using untested futuristic ideas but tweaking existing technologies.. Thus the price of going to a supply that meets a low–carbon fuel standard should be at or near the existing fluctuations of price.

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Laurie

    Your discussion paper has different headings and some different content than the above summary. So I hope you share info from comments between Discussion 1-3, or comments that should be in #3 may be in #1.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Rebecca

    Although pursuing cleaner fuel is useful, it should not be a focus of a long term climate policy. “Support in developing the commercial production of renewable and low carbon fuels in the province…in the long term, we can produce more low-carbon fuels in B.C.” In the long term, we can’t have vehicles that are still burning fuels, regardless of their percentage content of “low carbon” fuels. Why, then, would we want to build a new industry that will, by necessity, become obsolete within a decade or two?

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Sheila

    Love Abbotsford’s EcoDairy EV charging station; could we support more farms generating power while capturing methane from manure? It’s a good pairing with agritourism; farms have a captive audience while waiting for EV to charge.
    Highway rest stops might do the same with humanure.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Thomas

    I think there needs to be renewable fuels demonstrations facilities throughout the province. Methanol and Dimethyl Ether can work in slightly modified conventional vehicles which being made from advanced ligno-cellulosic feedstocks. Furthermore, these technologies can provide local fuel production generating jobs in forestry-dependant regions. Another opportunity is to work with the pulp and paper sector to create biorefineries. The technology for black liquor gasification is ready for prime time but it needs to derisked to become attractive to private capital. Using government fleets as a way to drive market demand for green vehicles should also be pursued. I agree with a increase in the Low Carbon Fuel Standard.

    1
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Laurie

    Here is a recent speech by Tony Seba, Stanford University energy expert, who predicts EVs will take over the market soon, and between this and autonomous vehicles, the world will be very different (in good ways unless you own an oil company). You might want to watch the video. BC would be wise to follow Tony’s advice, promote electric cars in many ways, and not promote vehicles with an internal combustion engine (or ships with an internal combustion engine using diesel, bunker fuel or LNG).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hoB7HN4B0k

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Laurie

    All renewable fuels mixed with gasoline will keep us with internal combustion engines for longer. We need to get away from using fossil fuels to run cars, if we are to avoid hothouse Earth at least some. Humanity needs ZEVs.

    If you are thinking of more alcohol in gasoline, corn is the source of much of this alcohol. Growing corn requires fertilizer. Fertilizer production uses fossil fuels. So for any crop that is produced via fertilizer use, to put a derivative of it into gasoline…….you are defeating the purpose of reducing fossil fuel use.

    LNG: LNG is, in the big picture, not a clean source of power, nor has it a lower carbon footprint.
    1. In BC, 75% or more of our natural gas comes from fracking. Soon all of our natural gas will be fracked. Fracking permanently contaminates large amounts of fresh water with industry-secret toxins, and this fracked waste water is poorly dealt with. Fracked wells don’t yield natural gas for very long compared to conventional wells, so wilderness gets cut up by more and more fracking pads and roads to them.

    2. LNG is not a lower greenhouse gas “bridge fuel”. Why? Because of leaks of natural gas (methane), very powerful greenhouse gas. Leakage with fracking is significantly higher than the industry admits to. There is also leakage from abandoned gas wells, compressor stations, pipes, flaring/venting, LNG plants, and old LNG tankers. President Obama promoted fracking for natural gas, and later when science discovered all this leaking, he was very concerned about what he had done/the fracking industry that was created.

    3. Natural gas does produce about half the carbon dioxide that coal produces. However when you take all the above leaks into account, Richard Hughes (highly respected Canadian geophysicist) says BC LNG is 27% worse re greenhouse gasses than the best coal burning technology China can build.

    4. BC LNG’ s substantial subsidies: The hopeful BC LNG industry has received significant long term corporate, royalty, and sales tax concessions from the BC government, in addition to subsidized power rates (which you and I will pay the difference on), exemption from carbon taxes, postponed PST on construction materials, and an accelerated depreciation rate. Outstanding tax credits for the gas industry are now over $3 billion. The industry will return no money to public coffers for at least 10 years. Let’s not subsidize them even more.

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Sher

    Please don’t delay increasing the biofuel component of diesel. Go to B20 asap using locally manufactured WVO, or renewables.

    Supply? What would it take for the private co. Western Reduction to manufacture BC B100 biofuel with all the fat fryer grease, waste vegetable oil, rendered tallow etc the company collects from across BC and ships as raw waste, overseas?

    3
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Sher

    Getting people to change their transportation behaviours requires many solutions, multiple options for people to reduce GHGs, now. Not everyone will go electric overnight. (70% of commercial vehicles in BC are diesel). B100, biodiesel from local waste vegetable oil is available in Greater Victoria (island Biodiesel Co-op). Our van runs happily on B100, manufactured in Central Saanich, which is accepted by the International Carbon Inventory as a zero carbon emitter. We pay 30 cents more per litre than the pump petro- diesel price, most of which is taxes. If govt removes the misapplied carbon tax on B100, and to incentive increased use of a locally-manufactured fossil free fuel also removes the 15 cent a litre road taxes, biodiesel in the capital region would be almost on par with price paid for diesel at the pump…and immediately remove x number of diesel spewing vehicles from South Island streets. Increased demand would increase supply. People would not need to invest $ and materials /GHG in new vehicles.
    Yes, have govt also incentivize /encourage investment in renewable biofuels. They are part of the multi pronged answer to getting rid of carbon diesel vehicles – including those 70% of commercial vehicles that are running on petroleum diesel today.

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] peter

    Provide incentives for using higher blends of renewable fuels. Make the fuel taxes into fossil fuel taxes instead to fund this transition. Provide direct funding support for initiatives to produce renewable fuels, e.g. RNG, low carbon fuel refining.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Brendan

    placing carbon taxes on biofuels (like biodiesel) seems absurd. by their very nature they don’t contribute to unlocking carbon that’s been stored underground for millenia.

    if the carbon tax were reduced, perhaps we’d see the major players increase the percentage of biodiesel in their diesel blends (if it became cheaper than petrodiesel after the removal of carbon taxes), which would be a great thing in reducing overall carbon emissions.

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] SEBC

    Under no circumstances should there be any encouragement of, nor permission for, LNG projects as a transition fuel. We are far too far along the road to a desperate climate disaster situation, as this and last year’s wildfires have demonstrated, not to mention the severe heat and drought conditions across Europe. Low emission fuels should be derived from waste products that we need to discard in any case, such as methane from dump sites or farms. We should not be using valuable agricultural land to grow crops for fuel but rather should be encouraging battery electric vehicles and active transit, in a big big way. The main place we should be looking internationally at alternative fuels is for transport that at this point can’t run on battery electric, such as air travel and some shipping. We should be rapidly accelerating a move away from fossil fuels rather than setting modest targets that can be voted away by the next government in power. We need major sunk investments in zero-emission energy including wind and solar, perhaps tidal and geothermal. No more expansion of fossil fuels! Our civilization is at risk and our children will be hopeless. Think too of the increasing rates of extinctions of species, and the accelerating feedback driving the climate warming ever faster! Enough incrementalism. Time for governments and their citizens to face reality, if we want to survive.

    Explore whether there’s a way to partner with Tesla or other EV makers to transition industrial vehicles to electric faster. Perhaps use some of our carbon taxes to create incentives to expedite this type of industry in BC. We never should have invested in the Site C project, but should have instead used the monies to invest in renewable energy innovation and expansion province-wide. The Site C dam was only ever planned to help power an LNG industry that we absolutely should not foster or pursue. It will likely cause irrevocable harm to lands both within BC and in Alberta, including the Wood Buffalo National Park. This was a really poor use of public dollars to pay for a project first devised to underwrite the costs for the fossil fuel industry, and latterly propped up to secure union votes. BC citizens need a government that demonstrates more wisdom and less self-interest on points like this.

    4
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Dr.

    Disclaimer: I am on the Board of Directors of the Island Biodiesel Co-op.

    I’ll keep this short and simple: Our co-op, as well as others in BC, have been lobbying government to remove the carbon tax (CT) from sales of B100 (pure biodiesel, which in the case of our co-op is both Canadian-sourced and recycled, reducing emissions by 92.5 percent). We argue that the CT has been misapplied to our industry and disincentives drivers from moving away from fossil fuels.

    Our co-op is absolutely supportive of the CT as an important market mechanism for shifting to renewables. But let’s apply it intelligently!

    6
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Joshua

    End the carbon tax on the sale and production of biodiesel!! This will increase the production of biodiesel in BC. I clearly remember when the carbon tax was implemented and applied to biodiesel. That killed a nascent small industry that had the potential to employ several. Biodiesel sale and production limps along in the province, but could be so much better!

    4
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] ron

    At the outset I will state that I have a bias on this topic as I am one of the developers of a world scale low carbon gasoline plant to be built in this province. Having said that I think some of my observations will be of some use. There are three major impediments to making real progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions form the transportation sector. The three I see are
    1) clarity of vision as to what the future will be.
    2) clearly articulated regulations and the absolute need that those regulations do not change and
    3) clear plan of action for government actions on which government can take the lead.

    1) For the vision, Government’s are usually loathe to make choices but here it should be clear that the future will be dependent on renewable and low carbon electricity. That should be explicitly stated and not hope for new technology breakthroughs that would change that direction. BC has an enviable starting position with an electricity supply base that is over 90% renewable. Government has the role of creating the playing field and then leaving it to industry to meet the objectives.
    This may require that all parties agree that climate change is not a political football to be kicked around every four years in hopes of attracting votes. In our own country, Doug Ford’s apparent climate change denial in Ontario shows every nuance of appealing to an uninformed voting public by sacrificing ‘costly climate change plans’. The damage of his first four years in office to the efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Ontario will be hard to erase. Similarly the efforts of Donald Trump to singlehandedly erase all vestiges of climate change action in the US will have a similar but much more dramatic effect.
    Here in BC the former Liberal Government is responsible for the major steps already taken and one would hope that they would find it very difficult to repudiate those steps and so the foundation is there for an unusual all party approach to climate change. In fact an all party committee could be charged with developing and implementing the plan so that it is safe from politicking through the next decade or so. There are lots of other issues to disagree on but the battle against climate change must not be allowed to become another garden of populism.

    2) Clearly articulated regulations are critical as they impact so dramatically on access to capital. This theme needs a bit of development. To make the kind of changes we want to happen in greenhouse gas emissions takes major effort and access to capital is the most critical issue. The world spends about $1.5 – 2.0 trillion each and every year replacing its energy supplies. Predominantly that money is invested in oil and gas development and power production projects. In 2017 in Canada over $75 billion was spent ($43 billion alone on the oil and gas sector). This is the order of magnitude investment required to reinvent our energy industry so that it targets reliable, plentiful electricity for the future. Not just any electricity but renewable and zero carbon sources. This means that somehow we have to get that $75 billion / year to move from current investment plans to new investment plans.
    This is where clear government action can make a big difference. Creating the incentives to do so and the disincentives to continue on our current path is a key role of government. Oil and Gas investments are made on the basis of low risk and high reward. Coal is already not much of an issue in Canada but even more stringent investment criteria are being met. Most of these criteria involve reducing risk for the investors and lenders. Money of this magnitude is coming from our pension plans and from the cash flows of large energy companies and other security conscious sources. How can that be committed to low carbon energy projects in the face of half hearted regulatory efforts which are ready to be pushed back at the drop of a lobbyist’s power point presentation? Such seems to have been the process that recently saw the federal government back off on Carbon tax timing, and I am sure Mr. and Mrs Canada were not invited to the discussion.
    In our own case a $2-3 billion project in Northeastern BC is not going ahead at this time solely because the capital required is sitting on the sidelines waiting for clarity.
    Government can fund all the development programs and demonstration projects we want but until the big capital comes to the table our progress will be minuscule. So the lesson is strong regulations which can be achieved and are not subject to rollback. This is the basis for large capital investments.

    3) As far as the transportation sector is concerned we will continue to be a tail wagging the dog as BC does not represent a big enough market to entice more than small steps to be taken but we must be ready and leading when those steps are taken. Continuation of our close relationship with California which is a big enough market can be a critical success factor and government efforts should continue to be part of their programs which are being successful in spite of Mr. Trump.
    As electricity is bound to be a critical part of the low carbon future we should not shirk the responsibility to ensure that our electrical grid and particularly the local distribution system is capable of managing the load when we reach a critical point in number of electrical vehicles. It is not just generating capacity that is important it is getting that electricity to each and every consumer so that they have the choice to make the electric car purchasing decision.
    This may lead to changes in construction codes and standards as well to ensure that new construction of homes and business have sufficient spare capacity to support the change when it comes.
    Hydrogen infrastructure will also be important in that future and more effort needs to be expended in developing a hydrogen supply and distribution plan for the province.
    It is probably time to start thinking about electric trains as well. Somehow Europe has electric trains as does China and Japan and they seem to continue to play on world markets with no loss of competitiveness.

    5
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Lisa

    BAN DIESEL BUSES, TRUCKS, TRANSPORT AND EVENTUALLY FERRIES, TUGS, FREIGHTERS AND YACHTS.

    WORLD HEALTH AND THE CANCER ORG. , KNOW THAT DIESEL IS CARCINOGENIC. CAUSES LUNG CANCER. DIESEL IS A KILLER. NOT JUST A CAUSE OF CLIMATE CHANGE. DIESEL GOES DIRECTLY IN TO OUR LUNGS, OUR CHILDRENS LUNGS….

    IT IS TIME TO SAY “NO” TO DIESEL. OTHER CITIES ARE DOING THIS.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Lisa

    WHY NO MORE AIR CARE.

    WHAT ORGANIZATION IS REGULATIING DIESEL EMISSIONS FROM VEHICLES, AND MARINE VESSELS?

    I CANNOT FIND ON CANADA WEBSITE THAT THERE IS ANY REGULATION WHATSOEVER.

    DIESEL IS CARCINOGENIC. CAUSES LUNG CANCER.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Lisa

    BUILD ANOTHER SEABUS TERMINAL FROM WEST VANCOUVER TO DOWNTOWN VANCOUVER. BUILD A LARGE PARKING TERMINAL ON THE LANDS NEAR KINDER MORGAN TERMINAL OR PORT AUTHORITY.

    MAKE IT EASIER FOR NORTH SHORE-RS TO LEAVE THEIR VEHICLES ON THE NORTH SHORE AND COMMUTE TO DOWNTOWN BY WATER.

    LOOK AT SAN FRANCISCO TRANSPORT SYSTEM. THEY HAVE SWITCHED TO ALL ELECTRIC BUSES, CLEAN ENERGY BUSES…..NO MORE DIESEL BUSES SPEWING CARCINOGENS IN TO PEOPLE’S LUNGS.

    LOOK AT THE CITIES IN EUROPE BANNING DIESEL BUSES, TRUCKS, AUTOS….TAKING A STAND.

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] GV

    Let’s reduce VKTs overall, and focus on getting people out of single occupancy vehicles and into public transit and on their bikes. That said, let’s invest in the most low-carbon eco-friendly options (protecting our forests and agricultural land), including carbon capture for making fuel (e.g. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-company-says-it-is-sucking-carbon-from-air-making-fuel-1.4696817). I’m not in favour of continuing to burn fossil fuels with a small percentage of lower carbon fuels in the mix – we need to transition faster than that.

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Louise

    No fossil fuels should be involved in future plans. If “low-carbon” is a euphemism for LNG, please scrap that plan. No fracked fuels are clean. No fossil fuel expansion whatsoever should be considered. The atmosphere is full already. All carbon emissions are harmful now and contribute to the likelihood of runaway climate chaos in the future. Any expansion in fossil fuel production, infrastructure and transport is morally irresponsible — no matter what its called.

    4
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Shirley

    Your implication that ” natural gas” should be used as one interim solution is essentially a weasel word for LNG. There is no reasonable excuse for going that route. The production of LNG is an environmentally destructive process and encouraging its use for transportation is counter-productive to the objectives of reducing GHG emissions.

    5
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Shirley

    Moving to biofuels does not solve the problem. Spending public dollars on it is not justified because the energy needed in production does not justify it relative to environmental impact. . EVs is the direction we should be heading.
    Money is better spent on rapid charging stations.

    3
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Sara

    Regulate the types of vehicles that can operate within city limits of urban centres. Restrict large, polluting diesel vehicles to the city limits and require the supply chain to use smaller electric vehicles or cargo bikes to deliver their goods within city limits. Reduce sprawl/urban limits to make this more feasible.
    Emissions testing to take older, more polluting vehicles off the roads that the owner is not willing to upgrade to reduce emissions.

    5
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Erin

    To preface my input, I am wholly in support of electric vehicles. However, most future energy scenarios for transitioning to 100% renewable energy by 2050 rely on biofuels to be able to do so on a global scale. Biomass does not necessarily have to be harvesting trees or potential food solely for that purpose – why not divert what we consider waste (fecal matter, waste wood products, compost, etc.) that is currently releasing methane and C02 into the atmosphere into creating energy? It is important to note that I do not support LNG because it is not renewable and is very energy-intensive to refine.

    For the naysayers in the comments, there are several points that have been woefully overlooked with regard to renewable biofuel. First, relying solely on mass transit systems ignores the very nature of Canadian geography. In Europe it is easy to travel without a car because it has very few large natural areas (since it has paved over most of the continent) and is much more densely populated. Second, mass transit is not a cost-effective strategy for most rural areas in BC – there is simply not enough ridership. Finally, how do you think ZEVs get to Canada? The massive ships that permit ZEVs and other goods to be transported use diesel fuel. If we’re thinking globally, in the long term I’d rather see Canada export biofuel from waste materials than heavy crude oil, or invest in biofuel production and sell the technology.

    To the government, the first step to cleaner fuels is only funding the development of renewable biofuels that are derived from materials that would otherwise be wasted. Do not put precious resources into LNG production that will have to be phased out in the near future. Human and animal feces, compost and other agricultural matter are the most obvious sources. Burning valuable waste wood in slash piles because of clear cut logging is a waste of heat and CO2 production – collect it for biofuel and require companies to be responsible for clearing the debris that at present helps fuel forest fires.

    Invest in protecting communities from forest fires by employing wildfire experts to determine strategic areas for building fire breaks. This can be done by thinning the forest and removing dead wood to make it more difficult for fires to reach built infrastructure, while using the collected biomass for fuel production.

    As a final comment, increase the requirement for decreasing the average carbon intensity of fuels to 20% now, and consider increasing it further in 2020.

    5
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] John

    Brilliantly stated! I fully agree.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] David

    Diesel trucks and cars should be totally banned for recreational use and heavily taxed for business use.
    Government should take all scammed VW and Chrysler Dodge Jeep vehicles off the roads.
    Government should encourage very low horse power vehicles and heavily tax big engine cars

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Steven

    It is good news that BC has finally included heat pumps in the rebate program – and should do much more ..in Comox Valley, where in Nov through Feb we have arguably the worst air in BC, the conversion to alternatie forms of energyt is beyond the pale of need. Opponents have consistently argued that they cant affort heat pumps, etc….while missing the point about the huge importance for health to all, including their families, it does beg the question…that there is a huge need for more funding for these other sources. Heat pumps would be the best, but more gas would move us away from wood stoves as well. So, funding, which is woefully small, must be increased for Heat pumps and others.

    To avoid the mixed message that too often is sent, that we will rebate all forms of energy equally, we must move…you must help move us all, as you are part of government, to stop funding rebates for the dirtiest form of heating available and only fund cleaner, non biomass, sources that would make a big difference to both climate change emissions and public health.
    Thanks you for the opportunity to comment, please take action. Our current situation in which our province is burning up, Burns Lake has the worst AQI (https://waqi.info/) in the world right now, calls for action sooner than later. later is looking more and more like too late.

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Lee

    Given a GHG reduction target for BC of 40% by 2030, proposing only a 15% reduction target for the carbon content of fossil fuels burned by personal vehicles seems to be aiming to fail achieving the provincial target. Personal vehicles represent about 14% of total GHG emissions in BC, and although there are other ways to bring these emissions down (promoting fewer kilometers driven and ZEVs), a 20% reduction target for carbon intensity seems necessary. However, it will be very difficult to pick a standard different from those of the other members of the Pacific Coast Collaborative. I believe California is proposing an 18% reduction target for 2030. This should be BC’s minimum target. BC should also consider expanding ways that fuel suppliers can obtain credits from related reductions, such as fuel supplier policies to support ZEVs, to allow some latitude to requirements of directly reducing carbon intensities of gasoline and diesel.

    2
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Michael

    I currently own a plug-in hybrid vehicle, which I use extensively within town. I have to use gas when travelling outside the community.
    A better charging infrastructure, with more chargers at more frequent locations would convince me to go full EV in the near future.

    4
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] cindy

    Convenient, comfortable, and safe public transit and cycling in urban areas is key to getting people out of their vehicles and reducing use of cars – ZEVs or otherwise. We need to invest in this and discourage the use of private vehicles to reduce our transportation energy use in general. Currently, transit is underfunded, user fees are too high, and cyclists are expected to use streets alongside speeding cars, limiting cycling to only a small percentage of the population able (e.g., age) and willing to take that risk. Good cycling infrastructure is all ages and abilities – look to Copenhagen and Netherlands for examples. ZEV transit would be excellent. Transit routes are clogged with cars – focus on car-free bus routes. If we move more people out of cars onto ZEV transit, and make remaining cars ZEVs, we’ll go a long way toward reducing emissions. This is one of those situations where people will need to be pried out of their gas/diesel vehicles kicking and screaming because people are almost addicted to the status quo. This is no doubt unpopular from a political standpoint, but it is necessary. Make it sweeter with economic incentives.

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] cindy

    Don’t use low carbon fuels as an excuse to delay development and implementation of widespread ZEV use. We need to move aggressively and rapidly towards ZEVs – as it is, by the time we get our act together with ZEVS it is already almost too late by some climate change model scenarios.

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] James.

    There is too much concentration on things such as synthetic fuels and not enough on electric vehicles which are non polluting.

    3
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Eve

    Go all electric as soon as possible. The tech is already here, just need the political will. Look at Norway.
    Phase out fossil fuel burning motors asap.
    Eliminate all subsidy for the extraction, refining and use of fossil fuels.
    Our relatively green grid will allow us to switch to renewable power sooner then provinces relying on fossil fuels for thier electricity.
    Do not allow imports of any vehicle that are not already zero carbon fuel based.

    8
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Elizabeth

    According to the EPA test results from 2017 Volkswagons are one of the cars producing the largest amount of CO2 gas (g/mi). Why are we importing high-polluting cars? A limit on emmissions should be set and all cars that produce higher than the limit should be banned from sales in Canada. This would force manufacturer’s to reduce emmissions. Vehicles that use less gas per 100 km should get a tax break at the pumps for being more energy efficient as well. There should be incentives given to the purchasers of any car that uses less than 10 L/100 km (combined city/highway average).

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Donald

    Everything should be electric. Fuel is a four letter word.

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Frances

    In addition to biofuel-burning engines, hybrid fuel-electric engines are also available. Combine the two, and you have an engine that burns less fuel, and can go further than electric alone.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Tim

    My issue is with the term “low carbon fuels”, which translates to going to natural gas and more fracking.

    We need to transition to “near zero carbon fuels” like electricity produced by existing hydro infrastructure with renewable energy sources.

    Hydroelectric projects should be small scale, not like Site C, and they are not carbon neutral when trees and arable farm land is destroyed during construction.

    We need to ween our economy and transportation systems off of fossil fuels.

    The transition should have started decades ago and the longer the pain is delayed, the more of it there will be for our children.

    Right now:
    Stop supporting any project that proposes investment in ANY fossil fuel infrastructure and STOP the tax breaks for current projects.

    Take that money and INVEST in diverse small scale renewable energy projects. Poser generation needs to happen at the local scale, so that a robust grid can be developed (one that does not rely on vulnerable large transmission infrastructure.

    7
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Laurie

    NO!!! Put the money into Electric Vehicles. Stop making more ways to burn Fossil Fuels.

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Ann

    I strongly believe the only realistic long term solution to reducing transportation emissions is to get people out of individual cars and onto mass transit.

    4
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Jae

    Bio fuels and synth fuels are essential for the transition to low carbon. BC companies like Waterfall group https://waterfall.ca/ are setting the standards for transparency, accountability and quality control of bio-fuels and carbon engineering http://carbonengineering.com/ is manufacturing synth fuels (hydrocarbons) from atmospheric carbon dioxide. This sort of innovation is immensely important and likely to become even more so as climate change impacts begin to be felt.

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Laurie

    Begin to be felt. You’ve got to be kidding!!!

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Jae

    Unfortunately we are still only at the beginning of experiencing the impacts of climate change. We are currently experiencing the effects of just under 1 degree of warming. The impacts are not linear, 2 degrees is significantly worse than 1. This is why it is so vital that we get on with the business of mitigating and adapting.

    4
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Michael

    Prioritise ZEV subsidies over this idea. ZEVs save people money as well as helping with climate change. Low carbon fuels are much less effective at saving money.

    4
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Jim

    I’m not a fan of prolonging the burning of fossil fuels any longer than necessary – even if they are “cleaner” or “low carbon”. Definitely no support for biomass related to food sources. Biomass related to garbage perhaps, but only as part of a broader strategy that focuses on reducing waste first. The primary focus needs to be on other areas (eg, electric vehicles) rather than putting more money into prolonging the carbon-burn transportation system we have.

    6
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Tim

    Sorry if some of this is duplicated. I wanted to get comments in but don’t have time to read all of the others…

    1. Eliminate subsidies on fossil fuels over the next four years. This will provide a level playing field for low carbon fuels.
    2. Don’t ignore or suppress disruptive technology when it arises, nurture it.
    3. Increase the carbon tax meaningfully: if is stimulates the economy so much, why aren’t we cranking it up?. Utilize the revenue to drive innovation rather than going to general revenue. The current strategy of sprinkling grant money on projects that fit into specific categories is not producing meaningful outcomes. Loan guarantees or tax credits for qualified activities and projects will provide more meaningful results.
    4. Get the politics out of it. The flip flops that keep happening in jurisdictions across North America are being driven by voter frustration at the lack of results and in many cases, common sense, when it comes to making any kind of progress at all on the important issues. The issue of sustainability needs to become a non-partisan, overriding, policy that is designed to meet the fundamental requirements of individuals in our province and world. Make this a priority and lead.
    5. Develop a strategy to support technology developers with an objective to goal to reduce the average technology commercialization timeline from ~12 years to 4 years. Recognize that big industry, government, and banks are not the ones to lead meaningful innovation because, in general, their purpose doesn’t align with short and long term sustainability objectives. The projects and technology that are moving forward are not ranked by merits or potential for change but rather on how well the story fits the “roadmap for technology development”, the subsidies de jour, and lender’s financial expectations and risk assessments. It is being increasingly clear that this is not producing meaningful change and the status quo does not align with the best interest of most people and our ecosystem.
    6. Make money available for independent research without a bunch of strings attached. Cultivate an environment where collaborative groups have space to develop a vivid vision for what we want BC to look like in 50 years. Why are we building energy and transportation infrastructure based on visions from the 1960’s? Why are we extracting all our resources as quickly as we can to ship them off to be turned into consumer products that end up in our landfills and oceans? Let’s start treating our resources as though they have intrinsic value and build value added processing industries in BC to upgrade these resources sustainably for BC and the rest of the world. Sorry, off topic.
    7. Recognize the shortage of viable pathways to reduce emissions from diesel truck transportation. Our focus is on cars because there are a bunch of sexy solutions close at hand. To significantly reduce emissions from heavy transportation we are going to have to come up with some better ideas. Battery semis, automated drones, and low carbon diesel from sketchy sources are not going to make a dent. Removing subsidies from fossil fuels and increasing the carbon tax on diesel will encourage this innovation. Competitiveness issues with jurisdictions that don’t have carbon tax will need to be worked out but this can’t be the excuse for inaction.
    8. Convert waste into low carbon fuels locally. it may be less GHG intensive in BC to use palm oil diesel from Indonesian orangutans’ habitat that has been burned to the ground but it is ethically and morally reprehensible. The technology exists at a commercial scale to convert municipal solid waste into liquid fuels however (subsidized) fossil fuels are cheaper and it isn’t sexy so communities, banks, policy makers, regulators, and those whose livelihoods depend on the current disposal methods are not interested in enabling these projects to proceed.
    9. Recognize the potential of engines that are designed for alternate fuels rather than trying to design low carbon fuels that integrate into our existing fuel infrastructure.

    6
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] John

    “Under current regulations, by 2020, fuel suppliers must decrease the average carbon intensity of their fuels by 10%, compared to 2010 levels. As part of the clean growth strategy, the province is proposing to increase that requirement to 15 percent by 2030. The government could consider raising it to 20% when they review the standard again in 2020.” I dont even know what this means and there is no explanation of it. NO. Investing in a dying industry which persists the carbon addiction is a waste of time and money making redundant companies which refuse to change only richer.

    4
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Kate

    Shouldn’t we be moving away from the burning of any fuel be it synthetic or fossil (except maybe if we are talking about burning garbage for energy)? Perhaps a tax exemption for blends of renewable fuels could help in the meantime; but, I really don’t see why the Province would continue to try to support and build this industry. Why don’t we let market forces direct commercial fuel producers into the future and focus our government on other growth opportunities for BC’s economy.

    4
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Lois

    With the progress made in electric vehicles and motors, and the progress continually emerging for more efficient batteries, I am not sure why we are doing anything gradually. Climate change is not happening gradually. It is in gang-busters mode and I think everything we do for the environment has to respond in kind. Government regulations can have a quick impact. Only uses of hydro carbons that cannot yet be replaced with anything else should be allowed to continue. That will hurt me as I don’t yet have an electric car or solar on our roof. We are saving for both. Government grants would make a big difference as well as dispersing jobs created by the outgrowth of the grants throughout our province.

    6
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Pam

    Why are we moving so slowly? Climate change is happen now. Auto makers/dealers must be pushed to switch over to selling ZEV’s way faster than you are proposing. They will move as slowly as you allow as more internal combustion vehicles sold now means more sales of ZEV’s later.

    5
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] jim

    Forget biofuels, mandate electric vehicles for personal use in urban areas NOW. Add a road use tax to all vehicles, based on location and vehicle weight. Make the tax punitive for heavy large vehicles with one occupant doing personal transportation.

    7
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Carol

    Yes, I agree with any lowering of emissions is needed.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Tim

    We don’t have a lot of time to deal with this issue. Tighter time lines are required. As for biofuels, only material that is otherwise waste should be used for fuel stock. No more growing food only to burn it up in motor vehicles.

    7
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Don

    It seems many (most?) here are against low carbon fuels because they see it as an extension of fossil fuels as opposed to EVs which don’t use any fossil fuels if the electricity they use is renewable.

    In response I say, while it certainly looks like the world is on a path to not address climate change, one way to lock-in that failure is to only accept pure zero carbon solutions that cause a lot of disruption, and thus won’t be accepted by the general public.

    The reason renewable power (solar and wind) are so successful is these energy sources seamlessly blend into the current electrical energy distribution system. If one had to rewire your house and buy all new lights and appliances to use solar or wind power, it would be a lot less popular.

    This is why I fully support low carbon fuel standards with ever increasing low carbon renewable fuel percentages that can make the transition to low carbon seamless to people. We should be setting in place a pathway to 100% renewable fuels by mid century by slowly increasing the blend over time. One nice thing about blending is it can make all transportation fossil carbon free. Not only light cars and trucks (which only make up about 1/3 of the transportation emissions) but also commercial, heavy duty and marine transport. I would include electricity for EVs as part of the blending equation to make sure they are continued to be supported.

    Now that said, that doesn’t mean I support first generation fuels like corn based ethanol. That was clearly a farm subsidy, and didn’t do much to reduce fossil CO2 emissions. We need the kind of fuels like those mentioned in the introduction,

    “with a renewed focus on clean synthetic fuels and converting organic materials such as forest and agricultural residues into renewable crude oil and natural gas that can be processed in B.C.”

    BC has ample woody biomass supply and ample renewable energy potential. These to could combine to make BC a world leader in clean synthetic fuels with the right polices in place.

    2
    2
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Ian

    I agree. The easiest way to gain acceptance is to seamlessly blend into the current system. This study takes a look at the potential for biomass in BC;

    http://cesarnet.ca/biocap-archive/images/pdfs/BC_Inventory_Final-06Nov15.pdf

    It’s an interesting read…we obviously don’t have enough supply to offset our current consumption, but we could look to decrease fossil fuel consumption while increasing bio-fuel production! Some options are:

    1- Incentives for more hybrids
    2- Incentives for smaller vehicles
    3- Incentives for motor swaps
    4- Incentives for lighter wheels/tires (great option for increasing vehicle mileage)
    5- Incentives to decrease building energy consumption

    There are proven solutions from other areas, we just need to implement.

    Bio-fuel production would support the agriculture, forestry and municipalities. It would be a win/win for the province!

    1
    3
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Laurie

    If you live in BC, “Look out your window”.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Anthony

    A longer term shift is no longer viable, we’ve squandered the last 30 years and in doing so have forfeited the luxury of a long term transition. I do not support a low-carbon transition and instead think we should focus on shifting rapidly to no-carbon options. Anything else sends the wrong signal to the market and is not bold enough to succeed.

    9
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Carol

    I would not like to see funds or efforts put towards biofuels or synthetic alternatives. It’s a band aid at best, and uses other resources and land that is best saved for non transportation purposes, and the emissions associated with these products when looking at the full life cycle are not a significant improvement over fossil fuels.

    5
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Mario

    Purchase electrolyzers ro make hydrogen from solar.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Mike

    I don’t believe their are ‘clean fuels’ in any meaningful way — given the rate of global warming, this is a stop-gap that should not be pursued.

    5
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Julian

    ZEVs, car-share, automous vehicles and public transport arte all key components of achieving lower carbon transportation in the future, all of which have been mentioned in the intention papers. It is important that we do not neglect the supporting infrastructure of roads, bridges and ferries and how the design of these facilities can encourage change.

    Past planning approaches have been based on reviewing traffic trends and projecting these forward; but as technology evolves and social memes change, we may be (I hope) at an inflection point where individual ownership of cars starts to drop in favour of, say, ride sharing, or summoning an autonomous vehicle when needed.

    Roads, bridges or ships built today will be in service for decades to come. In looking at new ferry vessels, for example, it seems that the management of BC Ferries is still thinking of ships that will take large numbers of cars rather than looking at either passenger only or ‘primarily passenger’ options.

    Clearly no organization can take an isolated approach to this. Passenger-only ferries can only be attractive if there is a comprehensive and integrated supporting public transportation system that delivers riders to and from the ferries; ride-share or car co-ops must be available at the terminals, etc.

    Those charged with designing the clean growth strategy must spend time understanding the physical infrastructure and environment in which our society operates, and also what kinds of organizations, businesses, Crown Corporatios, and transit companies need to be part of the discussion.

    5
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Jim

    A broad-based, integrated approach. What a concept… I agree completely!

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Pam

    Agree!

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Sharon

    Renewable fuel blends and related infrastructure costs are just prolonging the inevitable. Perhaps investing in rail transportation between cities (since Greyhound has announced it will no longer service Western Canada) would be more prudent than spending money on roads that need continual repair, and use oil products. Follow the successes of other countries that are miles ahead of Canada in terms of clean transportation. Travelling in Europe is so much faster, cleaner and their cities are more walkable/bikable once you arrive.

    8
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] John

    There are many interesting comments here. It does worry me that the building of infrastructure for Co2 emitting engines will just prolong the use of such engines. I believe the evidence I have been exposed to shows us that discouraging the retention of combustion engines is a more effective policy.

    8
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Thomas

    The idea is to use renewable carbon from biomass and air capture of CO2. The reason for this is that even 1 cubic metre of Methanol ( 2/3rdsof the energy density of gasoline) has the same amount of energy has 200-300 EV batteries.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Matt

    1) Offer incentives for clean fuels to reduce the use of fossil fuels.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Eric

    Europe dove into liquid biofuels big time, without doing proper due diligence. Now they are finally starting to properly research the true carbon footprint of liquid biofuels and finding many are as bad or worse for the climate as conventional fossil fuels. Yes, there are some great liquid biofuels made from true waste products, but this is a small proportion of the supply. We must avoid Europe’s mistakes; renewable electricity is the best source of energy for most transportation needs. Sources: https://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publications/2017_04_Biofuels_factsheet.pdf and https://www.nationalobserver.com/2018/04/30/news/canadas-math-may-overlook-carbon-pollution-biofuels

    11
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Cheryl

    A few years back we heard about a made in NE BC low carbon fuel called “blue fuel” I am curious to know if that project has gotten any traction?

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Scott

    I operate a commercial fleet of about 50 medium duty diesel vehicles. With our abundant and clean hydro power BC is very well suited to the adoption of electric vehicles, but no one is building specialty EVs that meet my needs. In the meantime I want to switch from petroleum diesel to Hydrogenation Derived Renewable Diesel (currently produced by Neste) but it’s not yet available in BC.
    And the technology already exists (using the Fischer Tropsch process) to produce clean diesel from wood waste. The Provincial Gov’t should encourage and facilitate the building of a BC refinery. Even with future widespread adoption of EVs, there will still be many applications that require diesel power and it needs to be as clean as possible.

    8
    3
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Laurie

    Tesla is making electric long haul semis for Walmart right now. I’m certain pick-ups and smaller transport trucks won’t be far behind.

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Gord

    Please pursue regional Hydrail passenger rail between cities for seniors, youth, visitors that either choose or are unable to drive. Rail is a lower cost, lower carbon solution to flying, and building more highways, not to mention way safer! Passenger/E-rail has been in EU for decades using third rail or overhead pantograph, but is costly. UBC is researching using made in BC technology – Hydrogen Fuel Cell/battery hybrid gateway technology for buses and regional passenger rail (and ultimately freight rail) as a way to transition all of NA away from stinking, noisy, vibrating deisel fuels. Therefore, please ensure all future provincial transportation planning in BC includes consideration for regional passenger rail, in BOTH urban and rural areas – across all of BC. It works, and is cheaper, cleaner, greener, quieter, safer – go visit EU if you want proof – all their rural communities as connected by e-rail!

    4
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Thomas

    We could demonstrate it on the government-owned Right-of-Way from Chilliwack to Surrey!

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Neil

    Renewable fuels are a costly way to reduce emissions. A tax cut to reduce the cost at the pump for renewable blends will likely be eaten up by demand pricing (i.e. the retailer will charge the same despite reduced cost because the consumer is willing to pay, and the profit will be pocketed by the seller). I guess that creates incentive for the seller to move more renewable blend, but seems like a roundabout way to do it.

    There is not a lot of point in building up a renewable fuel industry, as liquid fuels will be replaced with electrons soon – a lot of wasted infrastructure. I imagine investors will be very gun shy, unless premiums can be guaranteed on pricing, which would drive up the price of fuel. This may further push people away from fossil fuels, but just raising the fuel tax would do the same a lot more easily (and be able to fund more green infrastructure).

    There is a place, potentially, for renewable natural gas (e.g. from wood waste), but it may better to just burn wood waste to generate electricity, and use that to run heat pumps instead.

    6
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Ian

    There are actually a lot of potential fuel sources that we should be exploring!

    Some potential sources:
    – Municipal solid waste
    – Agricultural waste
    – Forestry waste
    – Food waste

    Let’s look at all material entering landfills and determine what secondary uses the material has. I recently read a study (commissioned by BC government) that estimated 50 % of BC’s fossil fuel consumption could be replaced with biofuels. If we promote this fuel source and decrease consumption, there is the potential to get off fossil fuels quickly!

    5
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] John

    LCFS moves too slowly, and is invisible to consumers, and in fact, only perpetuates the use of internal combustion engines.

    Make shift happen faster. Announce a phase-out of the sale of the most polluting vehicles in order of priority. Ban sales of diesel cars and light trucks, and ICE scooters, motorcycles and lawnmowers. Gasoline or electric equivalents are readily available now.

    China banned all diesel cars and light trucks 4 years ago. We can too.

    6
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Jared

    I was a biodiesel user for a long time and found it more and more difficult to find the fuel. It’s a great fuel alternative when produced from deep fryer waste oil

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Sarah

    Unfortunately, as much of Europe discovered embracing liquid biofuels without thorough research, many biofuels are as bad or worse for the environment — with high C02 emissions contents — as conventional fossil fuels. While it is true some biofuels made from real waste products are both efficient & low-carbon, more studies need to be done to determine which ones should be used. The scope of each study must include the base liquid’s source in order to measure each final product’s footprint, eg. Palm/ soybean oils made from crops created out of clearcut pristine rainforests (Earth’s most capacious carbon sinks) must be deemed unacceptable due to their egregiously damaging cost to the environment & by association, their untenable role as prime contributors to irreversible climate change/ global warming.

     

    1
    0
    permalink
Comments are closed.