Jan Gehl and grandmothers

October 12, 2014



It wasn’t Gehl himself, but someone dressed in black from his consultancy firm, hired by the developer. They stood on the street and studied the block-long lane way, shaded by overgrown Caragana and French lilacs. I remember thinking that I was pleased the bearded Irises, that bordered the north-side of the lane, were in bloom. At the community association meeting when his name was first mentioned, I could not quite believe it. But there they were four days later. Could this little stretch of pot-holed lane in a city known for its passionate embrace of large and/or powerful vehicles, become a canvas for an urban project inspired by Gehl?

A few years earlier, for a number of different reasons, I had begun reading as much as I could on complex interlinked issues and concepts such as affordable housing, densification, walkability, new urbanism, etc. Gehl’s name appeared in many of the documents I was reading. His influence in the real world, not just in theory was visible in many urban spaces.

Gehl acknowledged the influence of Jane Jacobs and her iconic 1961 publication The Death and Life of Great American Cities in his work. He cautioned that although “everyone” has read the book its lessons were not learned very quickly or widely(Hill 2014).

Jane Jacobs (1961) had critiqued the Post WWII urban rationalist modernist planning policy which drove urban renewal projects that separated city areas based upon usage-commercial, industrial and residential (Flint 2009). She focused specifically on Robert Moses and other city planners like him who favoured cars over people.

“Moses] was responsible for 13 bridges, 2 tunnels, 637 miles of highways, 658 playgrounds, 10 giant public swimming pools, 17 state parks and dozens of new or renovated city parks (Flint 2009 cited in Garner 2009).”

It was very personal. In the 1930’s when Jacobs moved from Pennsylvania to New York she chose to live in Greenwich Village, a neighbourhood which at that time had,

storefronts with awnings shading cluttered sidewalks, kids chasing one another in front of a grocery, delivery trucks stopping and starting their way up the street.” Although the midtown skyscrapers and the cluster of financial district tall buildings were visible from Greenwich, most of the Greenwich buildings were  simple, two or three stories-high with a few with five or six stories (Flint 2009).

“Everywhere she looked she saw people-people talking to one another, it seemed, every few feet, casually dressed women window-shopping, old men with hands clasped on canes sitting on the benches in a triangular park. Everyone looked, she thought, the way she felt: unpretentious genuine, living their lives. This was home (Flint 2009).”

In his book entitled Wrestling with Moses: How Jane Jacobs Took On New York’s Master Builder, former Boston Globe journalist, Anthony Flint (2009:4) described how Jacobs defied Moses over three huge public works projects Moses had attempted to impose on Manhattan and won:

  • a four-lane highway through the middle of Washington Square Park
  • an urban renewal project that would raze 14 blocks in the heart of Greenwich Village
  • the proposed construction of Lower Manhattan Expressway, a 10-lane elevated superhighway, that would have gone through SoHo, Little Italy, Chinatown and the Lower East Side.

In this YouTube video, “Intelligent Cities: Jan Gehl on the Neighborhood” by National Building Museum, Gehl described his vision.

As they perused the lane way I was already enjoying infusions of rose petals, stevia and cat mint from the garden on the other side of the lane way of the lot, the proposed site of 24 luxury condos. I had thought of offering them some but mentally calculated how much such a consultancy cost an hour or a minute. Months later with architectural drawings in place, the reality of the construction taking over the sun-filled empty lot noisy with gossipy house sparrows, magpies and squirrels, sinks in little by little.

It’s not quite a blank canvas…

References


Pumphouse TheatreOpening night of the Morpheus Theatre’s  The Pirates of Penzance was a rollicking success. Gilbert & Sullivan‘s popular and timeless two act comic opera The Pirates of Penzance directed by Tim Elliott and Mike Johnson, is playing at Pumphouse’s Victor Mitchell Theatre from April 18 to May 3, 2014.

The merry gang of pirates invading the secluded Cornwall beaches are not quite what they seem. The soft-hearted, ill-adjusted ship’s crew faces a series of identity crises with unflagging optimism. With riotous scenes of sword-fighting and dance, the musical romp is fun-filled tomfoolery. Morpheus’ high-spirited cast with a mixture of seasoned and novice actors, played their likeable characters with gusto, warmth and energy.

Winnifred (Win) Hume as the sweet, beguiling and determined Mabel, made a sensational entrance with an elaborate and florid trilling in the famous challenging aria “Poor Wandering One.” Win played Mabel in 2008 where she met her future-husband who then played Frederic. Unger and Hume’s impressive performances were lively and cheerful, soulful and sweet.

Carey Unger played the role of the hero, Frederic, the twenty-one-year-old, lovesick but duty-bound pirate apprentice. As he leaves the Heist and his pirate life behind him, he becomes committed to eliminating piracy and convinces a not-too courageous band of police to help. Misunderstandings twist through the plot and he learns that he was never meant to be a pirate but a pilot, an error of pronunciation. Then he learns his 21st birthday will not be celebrated until 1941, not in 1879.

With his strong baritone voice that filled the theatre, James Noonan (Hobson 2014) played the swashbuckling- if sometimes conflicted- Pirate King with bravado.

It was obvious that baritone Allen Crowley enjoyed playing Major General Stanley. Personally, one of the highlights of the evening- which included the entire cast with a strong choral back-up, agile choreography with great comedic timing- was kilt-wearing Crowley’s martial march-hop as he triumphantly and skilfully interpreted the famous fast-paced, tongue-twisting Modern Major-General’s Song. When forced at sword point to continue singing, the Major General “improvised” with Crowley’s own made-in-Canada contemporary pattering parody to the delight of the Pumphouse audience.

Notes

In 1879  The Pirates of Penzance‘s world premiere was presented in the Fifth Avenue Theatre in New York.

The Morpheus Theatre repeats The Pirates of Penzance every six years, which began with their sold-out November 1996 season performances, followed by productions in April 2002, in March/April 2008 and currently in April/May 2014.

While in Italy on the family’s Grand Tour, the very young Gilbert was kidnapped for several hours then safely returned to his family (Eggold vi). He claimed to remember some of this event and it emerged as themes of identity crisis, children switched at birth and topsy-turvy sagas of duty and love in The Pirates of Penzance and Topsyturveydom (which Morpheus will present in 2015).

Spoiler: In the happy-ever-after ending the noble background of the orphaned pirates is revealed. Queen Victoria makes an entrance and they all become members of the House of Lords, suitable husbands for the daughters of the Major General.

References

Gilbert, W. S., Sullivan, Arthur. 1879. The Pirates of Penzance or The Slave of Duty.

Eggold, Marie. The Pirates of Penzance.” in The Pirates of Penzance or The Slave of Duty (Vocal Score).  Treharne, Bryceson (Editor). Schirmer, G. pages x=xiii. ISBN:9780793525867

Eggold, Marie. “The Gilbert & Sullivan Partnership.” in The Pirates of Penzance or The Slave of Duty (Vocal Score). 1986. Treharne, Bryceson (Editor).  Schirmer, G. The Pirates of Penzance or The Slave of Duty (Vocal Score). Schirmer, G. Editor. pages vi – ix.

Hobson, Louis. 13 April 2014. “Rollicking dream role for James Noonan in Morpheus’ Pirates of Penzance.” Calgary Sun Calgary, Alberta

Bearspaw

November 14, 2013


Bearspaw by Maureen Flynn-Burhoe

 

HOME

Profile

Upcoming Events

Gallery

Bearspaw

Bearspaw 
12″ x 24″
Acrylic on Gallery Canvas
Shown in Federation of Canadian Artists exhibition Calgary Branch

It was a cool fall evening and the rolling foothills of the Rockies were still an enigma to me. I was still learning the names of plants like silverberry (also known as wolf willow), which were used by the Blackfoot. Its shades of grey differed from those of the ubiquitous poplar. I wanted to capture the rich tapestry of textures in the colours unique to the foothills. I wanted to capture the shapes carved in geological time as the glaciers melted, cutting furrows and creating the Bow River with its origins in the distant Rockies. I was beginning to learn the names of the peaks, the High Rock Mountains to the left and the distinctive Devil’s Head to the right. I could see a scattering of people, families, some walking thier dogs, meandering along the winding trails, becoming miniaturized the farther they went. The gullies were deep as they reached the bottom their voices could be heard as if from some strange space. It was cold and I was wearing my Dicken’s painting gloves and was wrapped in blanket. As usual I was chasing the light. The most dramatic light for painting is that half light when the sun is setting or rising. But as every plein air artist know, one has to work quickly to catch the rapidly changing light. I returned a second evening and then finished the details in my home studio. During that period I was listening to a very dark apocalyptic novel, Blind, and I was playing it in the background as I painted at home. It had an impact on the mood of the painting. But the sunburst provided that sense of hope on the distant horizon. Very Sturm und Drang

Notes

Silverberry, Wolf Willow, Misisaimi’soyiis (Blackfoot), Binomial name: Elaeagnus commutata

For more about Blackfoot see Glenbow Museum. (2005).  Nitsitapiisinni Exhibit. Calgary, Alberta: Blackfoot Gallery Committee

Photo of Silverberry on Flickr

See Plein Air Gallery

© 2013 Art by Maureen Flynn-Burhoe. Last updated October 2013. meta4site@gmail.com


In process: Google spreadsheet commodity market terms

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AlJYCo1juh__dDc0TzdnZ05nUjNqa004alh6VEJCS2c&output=html

Updating to new Google spreadsheets


 

 

Enter links in a Google spreadsheet

=hyperlink(“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_economics”;”Financial economics”)

 

Wikipedia article on Financial economics

 

 


 

Originally published by Maureen Flynn-Burhoe, on 8 June 8, 2011 on my social histories timelines that I will be eventually deleting. 

“Coal remains a key component of Canada’s diverse energy supply picture, accounting for as much as 20% of electricity generation. Six of Canada’s provinces rely to some degree on coal to supply electrical power, with three (Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan and Alberta) almost fully reliant (NRCAN 2010).”

Coal-fired power stations are major emitters of CO2, the most important greenhouse gas (GHG). Brown coal emits 3 times as much CO2 as natural gas, black coal emits twice as much CO2 per unit of electric energy. “Emissions of sulphur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NO and NO2) have traditionally been the main concern. Proven technologies, such as flue gas desulphurisation, selective catalytic reactors, low NOxburners and fluidized bed combustion, are available – albeit at a cost – to reduce these emissions. Recently, pending legislation on air toxics, especially mercury, on fine particulates, and on GHG emissions has emerged as a more formidable challenge. Canada’s GHG emissions from electricity generation in 2004 were 130 Mt. The overwhelming proportion, about 75%, was from the use of coal (NRCAN 2010).”

The world’s power demands are expected to rise 60% by 2030.[5] With the worldwide total of active coal plants over 50,000 and rising,[6] the International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that fossil fuels will account for 85% of the energy market by 2030.[5]

The five largest power plant sources of NOx in Canada are coal plants in Alberta, Ontario and Saskatchewan. The large emitters in Canada are mainly coal plants located in central Alberta, southern Saskatchewan, southern Ontario, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia. New Brunswick and Newfoundland also have one oil-fired plant each with large SO2 emissions. The 60 highest mercury-emitting power plants in the United States (or 18 percent of the those listed in Table 3.9) produced 50 percent of the total annual emissions from such facilities. Fourteen facilities produced 90 percent of the power plant mercury emissions in Canada, with annual emissions ranging from 275 kilograms to 1.0 kilogramIn Canada, the highest emitting facility produced 14 percent of the total annual emissions from the Canadian electricity sector (CEC 2004).

Mercury is a toxic substance that accumulates in the environment. Mercury emissions from power generation result from the combustion of coal, which
contains mercury. These emissions can be deposited locally and transported throughout the globe. Canada deposits 9 T of mercury but receives 100 T of emissions. Mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants in North America are generally unregulated, although efforts are underway in Canada and the
United States to develop control programs. For example, Alberta adopted a reduction target of 50 percent from 2003 power plant mercury emissions
by the end of 2009.

“Mercury control technology is highly efficient and available for all coal types. Activated Carbon Injection (ACI) is the primary technology being used to reduce mercury emissions from new and existing coal plants. Data from power plants shows that the tested boilers achieved, on average, reductions in mercury emissions of about 90 percent. (2011-03. Mercury Alert: Cleaning up Coal Plants for Healthier Lives).”

Who’s Who

Canada

  • Carbon Management Canada (CMC)

Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) of North America (SO2, NOx, mercury, CO2) “Consortia of companies, like the Canadian Clean Power Coalition or the Clean Energy Group in the United States, are coming together to promote the production and use of alternate or renewable energy sources. Other companies are partnering with counterparts in developing countries to create Clean Development Mechanisms (CDMs) that will help to address the looming threat of global warming. In a similar vein, several states and provinces have set in place or are contemplating firm commitments to significantly reduce mercury emissions at coal power plants in the next several years (e.g., Alberta, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Wisconsin).” This report includes lists of power plants and their emissions (2002 statistics).

Alberta

The Canadian Centre for Clean Coal/Carbon and Mineral Processing Technologies (C5MPT)  is a “research and education centre that supports sustainable and responsible energy and mineral development. The first Centre of its kind in Canada, C5MPT is a partnership of industry, government, and academia and is also a model of collaborative vision among leading researchers.” University of Alberta, Edmonton.

Alberta Environment Ambient Air Monitoring Strategy for Alberta.

Integrated Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Framework (IMERF)

Cumulative Effects Management System (CEMS)

The Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act

Clean Air Strategic Alliance (CASA) was established in March 1994 as a new way to manage air quality in Alberta. CASA is a multi-stakeholder partnership. It is composed of representatives selected by industry, government and non-government organizations. Every partner is committed to a comprehensive air quality management system for Alberta.

A timeline of selected events related to the social history of high-emitting coal-fired plants

2025 33 of 51 of Canada’s coal-fired plants will reach the end of their economic lives.

2011-06-08. “Coal Comfort: EPA Cracks Down on the U.S.’s Dirtiest Mercury-Emitting Power Plants” Scientific American. “Twenty of the top 25 mercury-emitting coal-fired utilities in the U. S. are located within 80 to 160 kilometers of some of the largest metropolitan areas in the nation.”

2011 Canada’s Environment Minister Jim Prentice had promised to firm up new standards to force electricity producers to phase out older, high-emitting coal-fired plants and require newer facilities to match the emissions of gas fired plants.

2011-04-26 The Saskatchewan government through SaskPower is moving ahead with their Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) project into $1.2-billion retrofit of Boundary Dam generating station. The $1.2-billion project will rebuild one of its old coal power plants to pump its greenhouse gas emissions underground. The new CCS clean coal power plant is the first of its kind and size anywhere in the world. The project is located at the Boundary Dam Power Station, Estevan and it will be completed in 2013 – 2014 (Leader Post).”

The project will be the world’s first commercial CCS system and it will capture an estimated 1 million tons of CO2 emission per year. That is equivalent to taking 200,000 vehicles off the road.

2011-05-23/27. McLinden’s “An overview of ∧ air quality activities at Environment Canada.”.

2011-03-22 The Government of Canada contributed an additional $899,000 in funds to a Carbon Management Canada (CMC) gasification project in Regina, Saskatchewan (Carbon Management Canada).

2011-03 Coal-fired power plants are the primary source of toxic mercury air emissions in the U.S. Mercury pollution contaminates our land and waters, causing serious human health impacts… [T]he top emitters of mercury in the U.S. (25 coal-fired plants) contribute nearly a third of all mercury emissions from the electric sector while only providing 8% of U.S. electricity. Nearly half of all U.S. river-miles and lake-acres were under water contamination advisories. This includes 100% of Great Lakes Coastal Waters Lake Acres. Eighty percent of all water contamination advisories in the U. S. were issued because of mercury contamination. (2011-03. Mercury Alert: Cleaning up Coal Plants for Healthier Lives).

2010-06-23 Canada’s Environment Minister Jim Prentice promised to phase out older coal-fired power plants to cut the country’s greenhouse gas emissions, moving toward gas fired plants. According to Prentice: “Our regulation will be very clear. When each coal-burning unit reaches the end of its economic life, it will have to meet the new standards or close down. No trading, no offsets, no credits.” The measure is expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the country by 15 megatonnes. Along with the proposed regulations, Prentice also announced the government would contribute C$400 million ($384 million) for its share of a fund set up under the Copenhagen accord to help impoverished countries cope with climate change.

2010-10-14 “Coal remains a key component of Canada’s diverse energy supply picture, accounting for as much as 20% of electricity generation. Six of Canada’s provinces rely to some degree on coal to supply electrical power, with three (Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan and Alberta) almost fully reliant (NRCAN).”

2009 “Since 1999, mercury air emissions from U.S. coal-fired power plants have decreased by almost 27 percent: from over 48 tons in 1999 to 35 tons in 2009 (2011-03. Mercury Alert: Cleaning up Coal Plants for Healthier Lives).”

2009-09-09. Valupadasa, Prasad. 2009-09-09. “Alberta mercury regulation for coal-fired power plants.” Fuel Processing Technology. Volume 90, Issue 11, November 2009, Pages 1339-1342

Abstract: “Alberta stakeholders, through the Province’s Clean Air Strategic Alliance (CASA), identified mercury as the pollutant of highest priority for control from coal-fired power plants. Working with CASA, the Province finalized a new Mercury Emission from Coal-Fired Power Plants Regulation [Mercury Emissions From Coal-fired Power Plants Regulation, March 2006, Alberta Regulation 34/2006, Alberta Queen’s Printer, Regulation may be found at http://www.gov.ab.ca/qp.%5D [1]. The regulation places the province at the forefront of controlling mercury emissions from the sector on a global level by driving actions to reduce mercury emissions from existing coal-fired power plants in the province by at least 50% by 2010. Requirements also include continuous improvement provisions for further mercury reductions beyond 2010 based on technology advancement over the next 10 years. This paper summarises the regulation, the work the province undertook at the provincial and national level in its development, and status of implementation actions.”

2009 Alberta electricity companies, “TransAlta, ATCO, and EPCOR, teamed with GE Energy to conducted full-scale evaluation of sorbent injection in Sundance Unit 5 operated by TransAlta. Sundance Unit 5 fires a Western Canadian sub-bituminous coal and is equipped with cold-side ESP for PM control. Goals of the program were to evaluate: (1) the ability of achieving 70% or greater mercury reduction using activated carbon injection in long-term tests (30 days), (2) the effect of sorbent injection on ESP performance and opacity in long-term testing, and (3) the effects of combustion conditions on “natural” mercury removal in fly ash. DARCO Hg-LH was injected upstream of ESP at average injection rate of 2.1 lb/MMacf and achieved an average mercury removal of 80%. During the test, the sorbent injection rate was varied from 0.55 lb/MMacf to 8 lb/MMacf with mercury removals from 65% to > 95%. The continuous 30-day DARCO Hg-LH injection testing demonstrated that 70% mercury removal could be achieved at DARCO Hg-LH injection rate of 1.2 lb/MMacf. Tests were conducted to optimize combustion conditions to improve “native” mercury capture in the fly ash. Testing demonstrated that combustion conditions that resulted in reduction of NOx emissions also corresponded to reduced mercury emission. Mercury emissions were reduced by up to 50% and NOx emissions by up to 35% from baseline levels as a result of changes in the way Unit 5 operated. Integration of sorbent injection with combustion conditions reduced requirements for sorbent injection by 20–30%. Testing has demonstrated that sorbent injection did not have an effect on opacity and ESP performance. Keywords: Mercury; Sub-bituminous coal; Activated carbon; Sundance 5; Cold ESPs.”First full-scale demonstration of mercury control in Alberta.”

2008 Collectively, power plants were responsible for 72 percent of mercury air emissions in the U.S. (2011-03. Mercury Alert: Cleaning up Coal Plants for Healthier Lives).

2008-08-21 Saskatchewan Power Corporation (SaskPower) studied a Clean Coal Project. The intention would be to build a coal-fired plant that would effectively capture all carbon dioxide emissions. The cost of such a plant was so high that SaskPower decided to not construct such a plant until later. Instead the required capacity will be obtained from power plants fuelled by natural gas. It would have been The first coal-fueled plant capable of capturing and burying carbon dioxide. Canada, had committed C$1.4 billion ($1.34 billion) on the plant planned to incorporate oil recovery in the plans to offset costs, a different approach than the U.S., which canceled a similar plant in 2007 (Whitten:Canada to Move Ahead on `Clean-Coal’ Plant After U.S.’s Fails.)”

2006. Alberta: “Mercury Emission from Coal-Fired Power Plants Regulation.”

Valupadas, Prasad. 2006-03 “The New Fired Power from Coal Plants Regulation.” Excellent summary, easy to read graphics and clear mapping of issues.

2005-12 In Alberta these high-emitting coal-fired power plants had subsisting approvals governing them: 1 Battle River* 1512-02-00; 2 Sundance** 9830-01-00; 3 Sheerness 123-02-00; 4 Genesee 773-02-00; 5 H.R. Milner 9814-01-00; 6 Wabamun 10323-02-00; 7 Keephills 10324-01-00″ Mercury Emission from Coal-Fired Power Plants Regulation.”

2004 Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) of North America. North American Power Plant Air Emissions

2004 Canada’s GHG emissions from electricity generation in 2004 were 130 Mt. The overwhelming proportion, about 75%, was from the use of coal (NRCAN 2010).”

1996 The World Bank launched its Clean Coal Initiative.

Webliography and Bibliography

Whitten, David. 2008-08-21. “Canada to Move Ahead on `Clean-Coal’ Plant After U.S.’s Fails.” Bloomberg.

Brown, Terry. Lissianskib, Vitali. 2009-09-17. “First full-scale demonstration of mercury control in Alberta.” Fuel Processing Technology. Volume 90, Issue 11, November 2009, Pages 1412-1418.

McLinden, Chris. 2011-05-23-27. “An overview of ∧ air quality activities at Environment Canada.” Air Quality Research Division. Environment Canada
MACC Conference on Monitoring and Forecasting Atmospheric Composition. 23-27 May 2011

Valupadasa, Prasad. 2009-09-09. “Alberta mercury regulation for coal-fired power plants.” Fuel Processing Technology. Volume 90, Issue 11, November 2009, Pages 1339-1342

Abstract: “Alberta stakeholders, through the Province’s Clean Air Strategic Alliance (CASA), identified mercury as the pollutant of highest priority for control from coal-fired power plants. Working with CASA, the Province finalized a new Mercury Emission from Coal-Fired Power Plants Regulation [Mercury Emissions From Coal-fired Power Plants Regulation, March 2006, Alberta Regulation 34/2006, Alberta Queen’s Printer, Regulation may be found at http://www.gov.ab.ca/qp.%5D [1]. The regulation places the province at the forefront of controlling mercury emissions from the sector on a global level by driving actions to reduce mercury emissions from existing coal-fired power plants in the province by at least 50% by 2010. Requirements also include continuous improvement provisions for further mercury reductions beyond 2010 based on technology advancement over the next 10 years. This paper summarises the regulation, the work the province undertook at the provincial and national level in its development, and status of implementation actions.”

Emissions from coal-fired plants in general

Fact sheet

Coal-fired power plants are responsible for almost three-quarters (35 tons) of all mercury air emissions in the U.S. (2011-03. Mercury Alert: Cleaning up Coal Plants for Healthier Lives).

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). 2011-03. (Mercury Alert: Cleaning up Coal Plants for Healthier Lives).

pings:
http://www.edf.org/documents/11661_mercury-alert-cleaning-up-coal-plants.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378382009002343
http://www.casahome.org
http://www.cec.org/Storage/56/4876_PowerPlant_AirEmission_en.pdf
http://www.environmentconference.alberta.ca/docs/Session-28_presentation-A.pdf
http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Regs/2006_034.pdf
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=av7cb8ehp7ZU&refer=canada
http://www.cmc-nce.ca/media-releases/2011/03/22/government-of-canada-backs-cmc-clean-coal-power-generation-project/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=cleaning-up-the-dirtiest-coal-fired-plants
http://www.leaderpost.com/technology/Clean%20coal%20plan%20global%20first/4674413/story.html
http://www.cmc-nce.ca/media-releases/2011/03/22/government-of-canada-backs-cmc-clean-coal-power-generation-project

categories: environment, GHG, emissions,

tags: Ecology, Environment, Social History Timelines, Activated carbon, Air pollution, Air Quality, alberta, Canada, Carbon Management Canada (CMC), clean coal technology, CO2, Combustion, Fly ash, Greenhouse Gases, Mercury, mercury-emitting, mercury-emitting coal-fired utilities, Nitrogen oxide, NOx, Particulate Matter, Performance, SO2, SO3, Sorbent, Subbituminous coal, Trace Elements


This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 60 other followers