Sideways Glances

With sunlight in short supply in southern Ontario for the past month and spring greenery still at least six weeks away, it’s been a challenge to capture much colour in outdoor photos. But that makes every brief break in the clouds all the more precious.

These panoramas were composed in the old-school, 1990s way (pieced together in Photoshop from several shots) rather than the new-fashioned way (waving a smart-phone camera at the landscape and choosing the “create panorama” function).

 

Waterway, Saturday afternoon, February 4 (click here for large version)

 

Breakwater/Snowshower, Monday morning, February 6 (click here for large version)

 

Seating is limited, Monday afternoon, February 6 (click here for large version)

 

Top photo: Winter’s Dawn on Bowmanville Marsh, Saturday morning, February 4 (click here for large version)

Energy From Waste, or Waste From Energy? A look at our local incinerator

Also published at Resilience.org.

Is it an economic proposition to drive up and down streets gathering up bags of plastic fuel for an electricity generator?

Biking along the Lake Ontario shoreline one autumn afternoon, I passed the new and just-barely operational Durham-York Energy Centre and a question popped into mind. If this incinerator produces a lot of electricity, where are all the wires?

The question was prompted in part by the facility’s location right next to the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station. Forests of towers and great streams of high-voltage power lines spread out in three directions from the nuclear station, but there is no obvious visible evidence of major electrical output from the incinerator.

So just how much electricity does the Durham-York Energy Centre produce? Does it produce as much energy as it consumes? In other words, is it accurate to refer to the incinerator as an “energy from waste” facility, or is it a “waste from energy” plant? The first question is easy to answer, the second takes a lot of calculation, and the third is a matter of interpretation.

Before we get into those questions, here’s a bit of background.

The Durham-York Energy Centre is located about an hour’s drive east of Toronto on the shore of Lake Ontario, and was built at a cost of about $300 million. It is designed to take 140,000 tonnes per year of non-recyclable and non-compostable household garbage, burn it, and use the heat to power an electric generator. The garbage comes from the jurisdictions of adjacent regions, Durham and York (which, like so many towns and counties in Ontario, share names with places in England).

The generator powered by the incinerator is rated at 14 megawatts net, while the generators at Darlington Nuclear Station, taken together, are rated at 3500 megawatts net. The incinerator produces 1/250th the electricity that the nuclear plant produces. That explains why there is no dramatically visible connection between the incinerator and the provincial electrical grid.

In other terms, the facility produces surplus power equivalent to the needs of 10,000 homes. Given that Durham and York regions have fast-growing populations – more than 1.6 million at the 2011 census – the power output of this facility is not regionally significant.

A small cluster of transformers is part of the Durham-York Energy Centre.

Energy Return on Energy Invested

But does the facility produce more energy than it uses? That’s not so easy to determine. A full analysis of Energy Return On Energy Invested (EROEI) would require data from many different sources. I decided to approach the question by looking at just one facet of the issue:

Is the energy output of the generator greater than the energy consumed by the trucks which haul the garbage to the site?

Let’s begin with a look at the “fuel” for the incinerator. Initial testing of the facility showed better than expected energy output due to the “high quality of the garbage”, according to Cliff Curtis, commissioner of works for Durham Region (quoted in the Toronto Star). Because most of the paper, cardboard, glass bottles, metal cans, recyclable plastic containers, and organic material is picked up separately and sent to recycling or composting plants, the remaining garbage is primarily plastic film or foam. (Much of this, too, is technically recyclable, but in current market conditions that recycling would be carried out at a financial loss.)

Inflammatory material

If you were lucky to grow up in a time and a place where building fires was a common childhood pastime, you know that plastic bags and styrofoam burn readily and create a lot of heat. A moment’s consideration of basic chemistry backs up that observation.

Our common plastics are themselves a highly processed form of petroleum. One of the major characteristics of our industrial civilization is that we have learned how to suck finite resources of oil from the deepest recesses of the earth, process it in highly sophisticated ways, mold it into endlessly versatile – but still cheap! – types of packaging, use the packaging once, and then throw the solidified petroleum into the garbage.

If instead of burying the plastic garbage in a landfill, we burn it, we capture some of the energy content of that original petroleum. There’s a key problem, though. As opposed to a petroleum or gas well, which provides huge quantities of energy in one location, our plastic “fuel” is light-weight and dispersed through every city, town, village and rural area.

The question thus becomes: is it an economic proposition to drive up and down every street gathering up bags of plastic fuel for an electricity generator?

The light, dispersed nature of the cargo has a direct impact on garbage truck design, and therefore on the number of loads it takes to haul a given number of tonnes of garbage.

Because these trucks must navigate narrow residential streets they must have short wheelbases. And because they need to compact the garbage as they go, they have to carry additional heavy machinery to do the compaction. The result is a low payload:

Long-haul trucks and their contents can weigh 80,000 pounds. However, the shorter wheelbase of garbage and recycling trucks results in a much lower legal weight  — usually around 51,000 pounds. Since these trucks weigh about 33,000 pounds empty, they have a legal payload of about nine tons. (Source: How Green Was My Garbage Truck)

By my calculations, residential garbage trucks picking up mostly light packaging will be “full” with a load weighing about 6.8 tonnes. (The appendix to this article lists sources and shows the calculations.)

At 6.8 tonnes per load, it will require over 20,000 garbage truck loads to gather the 140,000 tonnes burned each year by the Durham-York Energy Centre.

How many kilometers will those trucks travel? Working from a detailed study of garbage pickup energy consumption in Hamilton, Ontario, I estimated that in a medium-density area, an average garbage truck route will be about 45 km. Truck fuel economy during the route is very poor, since there is constant stopping and starting plus frequent idling while workers grab and empty the garbage cans.

There is additional traveling from the base depot to the start of each route, from the end of the route to the drop-off point, and back to the depot.

I used the following map to make a conservative estimate of total kilometers.

Google map of York and Durham Region boundaries, with location of incinerator.

Because most of the garbage delivered to the incinerator comes from Durham Region, and the population of both Durham Region and York Region are heavily weighted to their southern and western portions, I picked a spot in Whitby as an “average” starting point. From that circled “X” to the other “X” (the incinerator location) is 30 kilometers. Using that central location as the starting and ending point for trips, I estimated 105 km total for each load. (45 km on the pickup route, 30 km to the incinerator, and 30 km back to the starting point).

Due to their weight and to their frequent stops, garbage trucks get poor fuel economy. I calculated an average .96 liters/kilometer.

The result: our fleet of trucks would haul 20,600 loads per year, travel 2,163,000 kilometers, and burn just over 2 million liters of diesel fuel.

Comparing diesel to electricity

How does the energy content of the diesel fuel compare to the energy output of the incinerator’s generator? Here the calculations are simpler though the numbers get large.

There are 3412 BTUs in a kilowatt-hour of electricity, and about 36,670 BTUs in a liter of diesel fuel.

If the generator produces enough electricity for 10,000 homes, and these homes use the Ontario average of 10,000 kilowatt-hours per year, then the generator’s output is 100,000,000 kWh per year.

Converted to BTUs, the 100,000,000 kWh equal about 341 billion BTUs.

The diesel fuel burned by the garbage trucks, on the other hand, has a total energy content of about 76 billion BTUs.

That answers our initial question: does the incinerator produce more energy than the garbage trucks consume in fuel? Yes it does, by a factor of about 4.5.

If we had tallied all the energy consumed by this operation, then we could say it had an Energy Return On Energy Invested ratio of about 4.5 – comparable to the bottom end of economically viable fossil fuel extraction operations such as Canadian tar sands mining. But of course we have considered just one energy input, the fuel burned by the trucks.

If we added in the energy required to build and maintain the fleet of garbage trucks, plus an appropriate share of the energy required to maintain our roads (which are greatly impacted by weighty trucks), plus the energy used to build the $300 million incinerator/generator complex, the EROEI would be much lower, perhaps below 1. In other words, there is little or no energy return in the business of driving around picking up household garbage to fuel a generator.

Energy from waste, or waste from energy

Finally, our third question: is this facility best referred to as “Energy From Waste” or “Waste From Energy”?

Looking at the big picture, “Waste From Energy” is the best descriptor. We take highly valuable and finite energy sources in the form of petroleum, consume a lot of that energy to create plastic packaging, ship that packaging to every household via a network of stores, and then use a lot more energy to re-collect the plastic so that we can burn it. The small amount of usable energy we get at the last stage is inconsequential.

From a municipal waste management perspective, however, things might look quite different. In our society people believe they have a god-given right to acquire a steady-stream of plastic-packaged goods, and a god-given right to have someone else come and pick up their resulting garbage.

Thus municipal governments are expected to pay for a fleet of garbage trucks, and find some way to dispose of all the garbage. If they can burn that garbage and recapture a modest amount of energy in the form of electricity, isn’t that a better proposition than hauling it to expensive landfill sites which inevitably run short of capacity?

Looked at from within that limited perspective, “Energy From Waste” is a fair description of the process. (Whether incineration is a good idea still depends, of course, on the safety of the emissions from modern garbage incinerators – another controversial issue.)

But if we want to seriously reduce our waste, the place to focus is not the last link in the chain – waste disposal. The big problem is our dependence on a steady stream of products produced from valuable fossil fuels, which cannot practically be re-used or even recycled, but only down-cycled once or twice before they end up as garbage.

Top photo: Durham-York Energy Centre viewed from south east. 

APPENDIX – Sources and Calculations

Capacity and Fuel Economy of Garbage Trucks

There are many factors which determine the capacity and fuel economy of garbage trucks, including: type of truck (front-loading, rear-loading, trucks with hoists for large containers vs. trucks which are loaded by hand by workers picking up individual bags); type of route (high density urban areas with large businesses or apartment complex vs. low-density rural areas); and type of garbage (mixed waste including heavy glass, metal and wet organics vs. light but bulky plastics and foam).

Although I sent an email inquiry to Durham Waste Department asking about capacity and route lengths of garbage trucks, I didn’t receive a response. So I looked for published studies which could provide figures that seemed applicable to Durham Region.

A major source was the paper “Fuel consumption estimation for kerbside municipal solid waste (MSW) collection activities”, in Waste Management & Research, 2010, accessed via www.sagepub.com.

This study found that “Within the ‘At route’ stage, on average, the normal garbage truck had to travel approximately 71.9 km in the low-density areas while the route length in high-density areas is approximately 25 km.” Since Durham Region is a mix of older dense urban areas, newer medium-density urban sprawl, and large rural areas, I estimated an average “medium-density area route” of 45 km.

The same study found an average fuel economy of .335 liters/kilometer for garbage trucks when they were traveling from depot to the beginning of a route. The authors found that fuel economy in the “At Route” portion (with frequent stops, starts, and idling) was 1.6 L/km for high-density areas, and 2.0 L/km in low-density areas; I split the difference and used 1.8 L/km as the “At Route” fuel consumption.

As to the volumes of trucks and the weight of the garbage, I based on estimates on figures in “The Workhorses of Waste”, published by MSW Management Magazine and WIH Resource Group. This article states: “Rear-end loader capacities range from 11 cubic yards to 31 cubic yards, with 25 cubic yards being typical.”

Since rear-end loader trucks are the ones I usually see in residential neighborhoods, I used 25 cubic yards as the average volume capacity.

The same article discusses the varying weight factors:

The municipal solid waste deposited at a landfill has a density of 550 to over 650 pounds per cubic yard (approximately 20 to 25 pounds per cubic foot). This is the result of compaction within the truck during collection operations as the truck’s hydraulic blades compress waste that has a typical density of 10 to 15 pounds per cubic foot at the curbside. The in-vehicle compaction effort should approximately double the density and half the volume of the collected waste. However, these values are rough averages only and can vary considerably given the irregular and heterogeneous nature of municipal solid waste.

In Durham Region the heavier paper, glass, metal and wet organics are picked up separately and hauled to recycling depots, so it seems reasonable to assume that the remaining garbage hauled to the incinerator would not be at the dense end of the “550 to over 650 pounds per cubic yard” range. I used what seems like a conservative estimate of 600 pounds per cubic yard.

(I am aware that in some cases garbage may be off-loaded at transfer stations, further compacted, and then loaded onto much larger trucks for the next stage of transportation. This would impact the fuel economy per tonne in transportation, but would involve additional fuel in loading and unloading. I would not expect that the overall fuel use would be dramatically different. In any case, I decided to keep the calculations (relatively) simple and so I assumed that one type of truck would pick up all the garbage and deliver it to the final drop-off.)

OK, now the calculations:

Number of truckloads

25 cubic yard load X 600 pounds / cubic yard = 15000 pounds per load

15000 pounds ÷ 2204 lbs per tonne = 6.805 tonnes per load

140,000 tonnes burned by incinerator ÷ 6.805 tonnes per load = 20,570 garbage truck loads

Fuel burned:

45 km per “At Route” portion X 20,570 loads = 925,650 km “At Route”

1.8 L/km fuel consumption “At Route” x 925,650 km = 1,666,170 liters

60 km per load traveling to and from incinerator

60 km x 20,570 loads = 1,234,200 km traveling

.335 L/km travelling fuel consumption X 1,234,200 km = 413,457 liters

1,666,170 liters + 413,457 liters = 2,027,627 liters total fuel used by garbage trucks

As a check on the reasonableness of this estimate, I calculated the average fuel economy from the above figures:

20,570 loads x 105 km per load = 2,159,850 km per year

2,079,625 liters fuel ÷ 2,159,850 km = .9629 L/km

This compares closely with a figure published by the Washington Post, which said municipal garbage trucks get just 2-3 mpg. The middle of that range, 2.5 miles per US gallon, equals 1.06 L/km.

Electricity output of the generator power by the incinerator

With a rated output of 14 megawatts, the generator could produce about 122 megawatt-hours of electricity per year – if it ran at 100% capacity, every hour of the year. (14,000 kW X 24 hours per day X 365 days = 122,640,000 kWh.) That’s clearly unrealistic.

However, the generator’s operators say it puts out enough electricity for 10,000 homes. The Ontario government says the average residential electricity consumption is 10,000 kWh.

10,000 homes X 10,000 kWh per year = 100,000,000 kWh per year.

This figure represents about 80% of the maximum rated capacity of the incinerator’s generator, which sounds like a reasonable output, so that’s the figure I used.

Etchings at a winter sunrise

Six photos, taken on Bowmanville Marsh and the Lake Ontario shoreline. Saturday morning, January 7.

 

Goose Ghost (click for full-size image)

 

Zebra mussel (click for full-size image)

 

Zebra mussel (click for full-size image)

 

Surface Composition (click for full-size image)

 

Luminated feather (click for full-size image)

 

Top photo: Feather, at dawn (click here for full-size image)

St Marys Underground Expansion: Will a mine be a good neighbour to a marsh?

Where do you draw the line between “moderate” and “significant” environmental effects?

Are the dust and diesel emissions from a large mining operation likely to affect the health of an adjacent wetland?

In the case of the St Marys Underground Expansion proposal, those questions would appear to be closely linked.

Under Ontario rules for screening of proposed projects, a Category C project, judged at the outset to have “Moderate Potential Environmental Effects”, faces a less stringent consultation and approval process than a Category D project, which is judged at the outset to have “Significant Potential Environmental Effects”. (See A Class Environmental Assessment for Activities of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines under the Mining Act.)

The St Marys Underground Expansion has been slotted as Category C. The determination that the project will have only “moderate potential environmental effects” appears to be based substantially on the claim that nearly all of the activities will take place underground, and the surface footprint of the current operation will not change.

But the Project Description doesn’t give serious consideration to the cumulative effects of limestone dust and diesel emissions produced by a doubling of the scale of the extraction activities.

The St Marys operation in Bowmanville is adjacent to a conservation area which includes two marshes – the Westside Marsh and Bowmanville Marsh. Both are designated as provincially significant wetlands, and both are downwind from St Marys when the prevailing westerly and southwesterly winds are blowing.

Graphic adapted from Bowmanville Expansion Project Description, page 12. The lines at bottom marked “Declines” represent the tunnels in and out of the proposed mine.

The current quarrying operation takes out about 4 million tonnes of limestone annually, and the underground mine is projected to take out an additional 4 million tonnes.

The initial plans call for mining and primary crushing to take place underground. All the air that is pumped into the mine will be pumped back out via the exhaust tunnel. There is the potential for dust produced underground to come out with the exhaust flow; the Project Description gives little detail on how dust will be managed.

There will be additional processing of the mined limestone above ground, so there is the potential for more limestone dust being swept up in the wind.

Last but certainly not least, several hundred trucks per day will be required to haul the limestone off to market – at 20 tonnes per truck, the 4 million tonnes per year would fill 200,000 trucks.

How can we be sure that the dust and diesel particulate emissions from all this crushing and trucking will have no “significant environmental effects” on the adjacent marshes? The Project Description neither asks nor answers this question.

In a table discussing Potential Project Effects, the document repeats the same basic phrases in regards to “Areas of ecological importance, including protected areas”, “Views or aesthetics”, “Aquatic species or habitat”, “Terrestrial species or habitat”, “Endangered species”, “Migratory bird species”, “Surface water quality”, and “Soils – contaminants, sedimentation, erosion”. Regarding all these concerns, the Project Description says there will be no significant effects “since all activities will occur beneath the bed of Lake Ontario or within the existing licensed quarry area”.

It is important that in the next phase of the project screening, the possible effects of emissions get more attention in order to ensure that years of marsh rehabilitation work do not go for naught.

Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA) has this vision for the Westside and Bowmanville Marshes in 2026: “The Marshes are Clean, Green, Blue, Peaceful …. All living things enjoy the protected, tranquil area of the Bowmanville/Westside Marshes Conservation Area. The wooded, old field and wetland areas of the Bowmanville/Westside Marshes provide attractive habitat for abundant wildlife, and a diversity of trees and plants. … Neighbors are implementing effective plans to minimize disruption and noise ….” (Bowmanville/Westside Marshes Conservation Area Management Plan)

But CLOCA reports also make clear that a lot of improvement is needed. A 2006 report indicated that the wetland areas of Westside and Bowmanville Marsh both ranged from “poor to good health”. A 2014 Public Information Centre on Bowmanville Marsh Restoration reported “submerged aquatic vegetation and amphibians in poor condition”, and “birds in fair condition, but showing signs of decline”.

Frogs are thought to be especially sensitive to environmental contaminants, and frogs are remarkably scarce in these marshes now. How much more air-borne pollution will settle in the marshes due to a doubling of heavy equipment emissions at the adjacent quarry/mine? Will frogs, other amphibians, and the many other inhabitants of the marshes be affected?

If the Bowmanville Underground Expansion goes ahead, will “All living things enjoy the protected, tranquil area of the Bowmanville/Westside Marshes”?

Snapping turtle at edge of Bowmanville Marsh, June 21, 2015.

Top photo: St Marys Cement quarry and kiln, February 14, 2016.

fluid as the light

These five photos were taken at sunset on December 19 and sunrise on December 20 at Port Darlington on the north shore of Lake Ontario.

December 19, 4:25 pm (click image for larger view)

 

December 19, 4:30 pm (click image for larger view)

 

December 20, 8:09 am (click image for larger view)

 

December 20, 8:19 am (click image for larger view)

Top photo: December 19, 4:30 pm. (click here for larger view)

St Marys Underground Expansion: A whole lotta truckin goin on

Can the current Waverly Road/Highway 401 interchange handle a doubling of truck traffic to and from the St Marys Cement quarry?

Given that the Waterfront Trail shares the road in this section with the St Marys traffic plus the Highway 401 on/off traffic, can the Waterfront Trail be promoted as a safe and healthy recreational feature?

What mitigation measures will St Marys Cement propose to compensate for a large increase in heavy truck traffic which will affect commuters as well as recreational cyclists?

These are key questions raised by the Project Description for the Bowmanville Expansion Project.

A previous post (Special Delivery: Moving 4,000,000 Tonnes) provided rough estimates for the number of shiploads or truckloads of limestone aggregate the project would move each year.

The Project Description says that the aggregate will be moved “using existing road, rail and/or dock infrastructure”. But at the project’s Public Information Centre in Bowmanville on December 5, St Marys representative David Hanratty made clear that for the foreseeable future, the aggregate would go out by truck, not by ship or rail, primarily to customers on the east side of the Greater Toronto Area.

It is simply not cost-effective to load the aggregate onto ship, then load it again onto trucks enroute to construction projects, Hanratty said. Rail freight is now too expensive for a low-cost product like limestone aggregate, he added, in addition to the problem of needing to reload the material onto trucks for the “last mile” in any case.

So the 4,000,000 tonnes of limestone will all go out by truck. At 20 tonnes per truck, that would mean 200,000 truckloads per year, or 770 truckloads per day if the aggregate is hauled five days/week.

(Put another way, truck traffic in and out of St Marys is likely to more than double. While the current quarry extracts a similar amount of limestone as the underground expansion is projected to add, much of the current output is in the form of cement clinkers shipped out on the Capt. Henry Jackman. With a capacity of 30,000 tonnes, this ship can carry the equivalent of 1500 20-tonne truckloads each time it leaves port. But the aggregate shipments from the new underground mine will all go by truck.)

The timing of shipments to market will also affect traffic volume. If buyers are not prepared to stockpile aggregate through the winter, the hauling might be concentrated in the summer construction season – meaning the impact on the Waverly Road/Highway 401 interchange, and on the Waterfront Trail, could be especially heavy during summer.

The current Highway 401 on- and off-ramps in this location are far from ideal. On the south side, traffic coming off the eastbound 401 has to get past two stop signs before making it onto Waverly Road. The left turn onto Waverly Road will be more difficult when several hundred more trucks per day are heading north on Waverly.

Traffic getting off the eastbound 401 faces two stop signs before turning onto Waverly Road (red Xs), causing frequent back-ups along the off-ramp. Assuming most of the loads of aggregate from St Marys will go to the eastern GTA, the loaded trucks will travel north along Waverly Road (red arrow) to the 401 westbound ramp, making it more difficult for Bowmanville-bound traffic to turn onto Waverly Road from Energy Drive. The volume of traffic on the eastbound off-ramp will also be increased, due to empty aggregate trucks returning from GTA markets via the eastbound 401. (Image from Google Maps, December 13, 2016)

Perhaps this interchange can be re-engineered to handle the new traffic load. Is St Marys prepared to fund this reconstruction as part of its impact mitigation efforts?

As for the Waterfront Trail, the addition of several hundred more trucks per day to the section of shared Trail/roadway will make the Trail less attractive and less safe. Two changes might be made to mitigate this impact.

First, perhaps the Trail could be rerouted here to eliminate the sharing of congested roadway on Waverly Road and Energy Drive. Ironically, Google Maps currently shows an incorrect routing for the Waterfront Trail as shown below; could this route become reality in the future?

Although the Waterfront Trail is currently routed on Waverly Road and then along Energy Drive (as shown by the red arrows), Google Maps incorrectly shows a routing along the north edge of the St Marys property (the solid blue line). Could this route become reality in the future? (Image from maps.google.ca, December 13, 2016) click for larger view

Second, there is no safe and attractive route between the Waterfront Trail and most of the populated areas of Bowmanville. Cyclists from the north side of the 401 have two choices, both poor, for routes across the 401 to the Waterfront Trail (see Getting across the 401). One of these routes is Waverly Road, which will be more dangerous for cyclists if there is a major increase in truck traffic without an appropriate “complete streets” redesign.

Perhaps St Marys can mitigate the expansion project’s negative impact on the Waterfront Trail by funding a separate walking/cycling overpass or underpass at the 401. Such a routing would be a significant improvement to Bowmanville’s recreational trails, which currently offer no safe connection to the Waterfront Trail.

Top photo: Bumper-to-bumper traffic on off-ramp to Waverly Road from eastbound 401, December 13, 2016

Special Delivery: Moving 4,000,000 Tonnes

The St Marys Cement Underground Expansion Project envisions extracting 4 million tonnes of limestone each year from a new mine beneath Lake Ontario on the south side of Bowmanville.

To understand the scope of the project and its possible environmental effects, it helps to look at the logistics: how much transport capacity does it take to move 4 million tonnes per year?

St Marys says that the limestone will be shipped out as aggregate “using existing road, rail and/or dock infrastructure.” These three shipment methods have very different environmental effects, and presumably there will be further detail on the likely mix of shipping modes in the Environmental Assessment.

In coming to terms with the quantities involved, however, marine shipping is the easiest to picture. The bulk carrier Capt. Henry Jackman is a frequent visitor to the St Marys dock. It carries up to 30,550 tons of cargo (source: boatnerd.com) or 27,715 tonnes. To haul away 4 million tonnes, the Capt. Henry Jackman (or similar-sized ship) would need to make 144 trips. This would equal about 4 trips per week during an eight-month shipping season.

Since outgoing shipments of aggregate would be in addition to all the current in- and out-going shipments at the St Marys dock, one key question is: how many boatloads of aggregate could be shipped out each year assuming there are no significant changes to the docking infrastructure?

While marine transport is by far the most efficient in terms of fuel consumed per tonne per kilometer, the market for aggregate may not favour bulk port-to-port shipment. If most of the limestone aggregate is destined for construction projects scattered all around the Greater Toronto Area, then trucking will be the most cost-effective shipping method.

Suppose all the aggregate were trucked to market. Using a round figure of 20 tonnes per truck load, the 4 million tonnes would be 200,000 truckloads per year – about 770 loads each day if the hauling is done five days/week, or about 550 loads per day if hauling continues every day of the week.

There is a wide variance in truck capacity, from tri-axle dump trucks, to dump trucks with secondary trailers, to full-length tractor-trailers. However, unless most of the aggregate is sent by some combination of marine transport and rail, there will be hundreds of truckloads per day of aggregate exiting the quarry, in addition to the current shipments of cement.

The connection between the St Marys quarry and the road network is shown on the Google Maps image below.

waterfront-trail-waverly-annotated2

Drivers who frequently use the Waverly Road/Highway 401 interchange just north of the quarry will attest that traffic frequently backs up at the on/off ramps for eastbound traffic (on the south side of the 401). What effect would a few hundred extra trucks/day have on this traffic?

A major recreational feature, the Waterfront Trail, would also be impacted by the additional traffic. The Waterfront Trail is routed along Waverly Road and Energy Drive just north of the quarry:

Looking west on Waterfront Trail, at junction with Waverly Road.

Looking west on Waterfront Trail, at junction with Waverly Road.

Users of the Waterfront Trail share the road with traffic entering and exiting the 401 in this interchange:

Looking west from Waverly Road along Energy Drive, with on/off ramps for 401 eastbound traffic.

Looking west from Waverly Road along Energy Drive, with on/off ramps for 401 eastbound traffic.

Truck traffic going north on Waverly Road and County Road 57, or going to the westbound 401, will use the narrow bridge over the 401:

Waverly Road bridge over Highway 401 to Bowmanville and to westbound 401 access ramp.

Waverly Road bridge over Highway 401 to Bowmanville and to westbound 401 access ramp.

This bridge is part of one of the two current cycling routes between Bowmanville and the Waterfront Trail (see Getting Across the 401). The combination of a narrow bridge with merging and turning traffic on either side of the bridge makes this a dangerous passage for cyclists, even without adding several hundred more heavy trucks each day.

The transport of 4,000,000 tonnes of limestone aggregate may have significant implications re traffic congestion and danger to vulnerable road users. When coupled with the wear and tear on roads and the emissions from diesel engines, the impact of transportation will be an important part of the Environmental Assessment of this project.

 

Top photo: the Capt. Henry Jackman approaching the St Marys dock, August 2016.

St Marys Cement environmental assessment: does climate policy matter?

A proposal to excavate hundreds of millions of tonnes of limestone from beneath Lake Ontario raises many questions, starting with a big one: should we be planning for the continued expansion of the concrete industry, given what we already know about climate change?

St Marys Cement, a Canadian branch of Brazilian multinational Votorantim Cimentos, operates a limestone quarry and cement factory on the shore of Lake Ontario at Bowmanville, Ontario. The company wants to expand by tunnelling under Lake Ontario from the existing quarry, and removing up to 4 million tonnes of limestone a year for the next 100 years. (The Project Description for the expansion is here.)

Graphic from St Marys project description at http://bowmanvilleexpansion.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/Bowmanville_Expansion_Project_Description.pdf

Graphic from St Marys Project Description

(A note on terminology: in this article I use “cement” to refer to the white powder that is mixed with gravel and water, and “concrete” to refer to the construction material that results when the gravel-cement mixture reacts with water and solidifies.)

While concrete is one of the most important and ubiquitous materials in modern life, the cement industry is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for 8% of global carbon emissions (Macleans, 7 March 2016). The emissions occur because when limestone is cooked to transform it into cement its natural carbon content is released, and because it takes prodigious amounts of heat to effect this chemical transformation. That is why the St Marys plant in Bowmanville burns both coal and bitcoke (the black powder left over from bitumen after refining) by the shipload.

Not only is cement production carbon-emissions intensive, but the way we use cement tends to encourage further carbon emissions. The biggest share of cement in Ontario goes into concrete pavement which is used to widen roads and add new parking lots – which in turn promotes greater use of cars and trucks.

Which brings us back to the St Marys expansion plan. The company is not saying it will expand its cement production in Bowmanville, but the additional limestone will most likely be used with cement. For further clarity, the limestone extracted from under Lake Ontario will be marketed in industry parlance as “aggregate” – what most people refer to as gravel. And that aggregate will mostly be mixed with cement, to form concrete, or used as a base layer underneath slabs of concrete. In other words, the quarrying of limestone for aggregate will complement St Marys core business of quarrying limestone for cement.

Is a major new source of aggregate needed in the Toronto area? St Marys says in their Project Description:

Over the past 20 years, Ontario has consumed over 3 billion tonnes of aggregate and limestone or about 164 million tonnes per year on average. Given expected levels of economic and population growth, Ontario’s consumption of aggregates and limestone for cement is projected to average about 186 million tonnes per year over the next 20 years.” (Project Description, page 8) [emphasis mine]

The key phrase here is “given expected levels of economic and population growth”. If the economic trends of the past 20 years continue on the same track for the next 20 years, aggregate use will go up by 13 per cent – from 164 million tonnes per year to 186 million. In other words, if we continue Business As Usual, we will need more aggregate.

How is this aggregate used?

Aggregate and limestone are used for a wide range of applications in Ontario; however, the primary use is in construction work, either directly on construction sites, or in the manufacturing of concrete and other building products. Roads (provincial highways, as well as municipal and private roads) account for the largest share of aggregate used in construction work.” (Project Description, page 8) [emphasis mine]

In recent decades the area of pavement has grown faster than the population has grown, because urban sprawl has been the dominant form of development. If we project that “Business As Usual” scenario into the next generation, we’ll need to build a lot more roadway, we’ll need a lot more aggregate, and we’ll need a lot more cement.

But the “Business As Usual” scenario collides head-on with Canada’s official climate policy commitments. Although no one thinks we can or should stop using cement (or fossil fuels) tomorrow, it is clear that we should be making every effort to reduce our carbon emissions immediately, and reduce those emissions at a faster rate with each passing year. That means we should be planning to reduce, not increase, the role of car-dependent sprawl in our urban developments; reduce, not increase, the amount of new pavement we place atop our land each year; and reduce, not increase, the amount of cement we need to cook up and mix with aggregate for concrete each year.

The Business As Usual scenario means we don’t take seriously the climate science consensus that continued growth in carbon emissions will be catastrophic for our grandchildren, and we don’t take seriously our government’s commitment to an economy-wide reduction of emissions.

St Marys Cement notice of Public Information Centre, Monday December 5, 2016

St Marys Cement notice of Public Information Centre, Monday December 5, 2016

Yet there is no evidence in the St Marys Project Description that anything other than a Business As Usual scenario is being considered. Regarding the carbon emissions of the project, the most substantive comment is that the quarry will have “reduced GHG [Green House Gas] emission intensity compared to other quarries that are located further from market.” The report does note, however, that “potential effects on climate change as a result of the Project will be characterized through the EA [Environmental Assessment] process.”

When this Environmental Assessment process gets underway, will St Marys be required to show that the expansion project is consistent with Ontario’s and Canada’s official climate policies? Stay tuned.

 

 

Top photo: The Peter Cresswell docked at the St Marys Cement port on Lake Ontario near Bowmanville.

Highway 401 overpass at Liberty Street, Bowmanville

Getting past the 401

Toronto’s infamous Gardiner Expressway is an unwelcome wall between the city and its Lake Ontario waterfront. But at the far edge of the Toronto metroplex, Highway 401 acts as a similar barrier separating local residents from the recreational facilities along the lake.

While the 401 runs along the north edge of historic Toronto, far from the lake, this is not true in the eastern reaches of the Greater Toronto Area. There the 401 runs close to the lake, and most residential development is north of the 401. This is particularly true at the east end of Durham Region in the Municipality of Clarington, the amalgamated governing region which includes Bowmanville.

A google satellite map of Toronto and its eastern suburbs.

A google satellite map of Toronto and its eastern suburbs.

Here the lakeshore and the 401 are in close proximity. Furthermore, from Oshawa east to Bowmanville most of the land between the 401 and the shoreline is marshland, farmland, or occupied by major industries, although there are recreational areas including a provincial park, several beaches, and the Waterfront Trail.

Google satellite map of shoreline from Oshawa in west to Bowmanville in east.

Google satellite map of shoreline from Oshawa in the west to Bowmanville in the east. (click map for larger version)

In Bowmanville there are well-used multi-purpose trails in the two valleys that run predominantly north-south through that town. These trails would be even more attractive if they linked up with the Waterfront Trail and the newly-developed East Beach Park. But the 401 is a daunting hurdle.

As shown on this Waterfront Trail map, there is no good linkage between the recreational trails in residential Bowmanville and the Waterfront Trail.

As shown on this Waterfront Trail map, there is no good linkage between the recreational trails in residential Bowmanville and the Waterfront Trail. (click map for larger version)

The Municipality’s Active Transportation Plan recognizes the importance of establishing better linkages:

The Clarington Active Transportation Plan includes among its goals to establish new linkages, for cyclists, walkers and runners, between the creek valley paths and the Waterfront Trail.

The Clarington Active Transportation Plan includes among its goals to establish new linkages, for cyclists, walkers and runners, between the creek valley paths and the Waterfront Trail. (Graphic adapted from map at www.clarington.net.)

Such linkages are a worthy goal, because the current 401 crossings discourage or intimidate many would-be recreational cyclists, and few parents would be happy seeing their children bike south to the beach given the current access options.

Biking past the 401

There are two ways to get from the major residential areas of Bowmanville to the 401: using the Liberty Street underpass or the Waverley Road overpass.

Waverley Rd and Liberty St crossings of the 401 in Bowmanville

Cyclists going from residential Bowmanville to the Waterfront Trail or East Beach Park need to cross the 401 at Waverley Rd or Liberty St.

Both options are busy roads which also serve as entrance/exit routes to/from the 401, so they carry heavy commuter and truck traffic.

Here’s what the Liberty Street underpass looks like to a cyclist traveling north:

Not only is the tunnel narrow and dark, but the noise of traffic bouncing off the walls makes it difficult to tell how close cars or trucks really are.

Below is a view of the same tunnel going southbound. If heading south to the Waterfront Trail, you need to turn left immediately after exiting the tunnel, so getting into left-turn position while inside the tunnel is part of the challenge.

One kilometer west of Liberty Street is the Waverley Road/Durham Rd 57 interchange with the 401. This route has a bridge instead of the dark claustrophia-inducing tunnel of Liberty Street. But because it is much more open, four lanes, and a regional road, traffic tends to be much faster.

For inexperienced cyclists, a key problem when going south is to get past the right-hand lane which becomes a turn-only entrance ramp to the 401. Should you move from the right-hand lane into the left lane early? Or do you stay in the right-hand lane as long as possible, and then turn through traffic which may have accelerated to near-highway-speed at this point?

Once past this obstacle you come up to the shoulder-less bridge over the 401. This carries traffic heading for the 401-east entrance ramp, as well as heavy truck traffic bound for St. Mary’s Cement. Just over the bridge, the 401-eastbound turn-off results in lots of turning vehicles, and drivers who often appear surprised to see a cyclist continuing straight south past this point.

Going north on Waverley Rd from the Waterfront Trail, you must share the narrow bridge with the same commuter and truck traffic:

By the time you’ve ridden north past another 401-westbound entrance ramp, Waverley Road morphs into an multi-lane arterial road at its intersection with Baseline Road, with two northbound through lanes plus a left-turn lane.

After the peace and quiet of a family-friendly ride on the Waterfront Trail, coping with this burst of big-city traffic may come as quite a shock – which is perhaps why so few cyclists are seen making this crossing.

Although I’ve ridden these routes about 50 times each over the past 18 months, I’ve yet to meet another cyclist on the Waverley Road crossing, and only a few times have I seen other cyclists making the Liberty Street crossing.

Clearly the Municipality’s goal of linking the in-town bike paths to the Waterfront Trail will meet an important need. But the 401 is an imposing physical barrier, and we must hope the Municipality will find the resources for this project in the near future.

at the end of the day

As the sun sinks low the nighttime feeders are venturing out for breakfast, daytime feeders are grabbing a few more bites, and they can all be seen in the best light. Here are some recent photos from Bowmanville Marsh, in Port Darlington on Lake Ontario.