Novolyte Technologies and Foosung Form JV for Li-ion Electrolytes
UPS and Electric Vehicles International Begin Demonstration of Fully Electric Walk-In Van

Government of Canada Releases Final Regulations for Renewable Fuel Content in Gasoline

The Government of Canada has finalized regulations requiring an average renewable fuel content of 5% in gasoline; the regulations comes into effect starting 15 December 2010.

These regulations are one pillar of the Government’s broader Renewable Fuels Strategy. Canada will implement a requirement for 2% renewable content in diesel fuel and heating oil, subject to successful demonstration of technical feasibility under the range of Canadian conditions, which would be put in place by an amendment to the Renewable Fuels Regulations.

When fully implemented, the Strategy’s two regulatory requirements combined with provincial regulations will ensure a total volume of renewable fuel that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to four megatonnes in 2012—about the equivalent of taking one million vehicles off the road.

These regulations are a key initiative in support of the Government of Canada’s commitment to reduce Canada’s total greenhouse gas emissions by 17% from 2005 levels by 2020. In addition, the Government of Canada is working with the US towards common North American standards for regulating greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles, and has recently published, draft regulations for vehicle tailpipe emissions under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act that are aligned with those of the US. Building on that successful collaboration, the Government of Canada said it will continue to work with the US to do the same for heavy-duty vehicles.




I thought it was reduced to 0.05% after the PM visited Alberta.

Henry Gibson

Nobody in the Canadian government knows that "renewable" fuels destroy the natural environment or at least prevents land from returning to a natural state. It would be far better and cheaper for CO2 removal just to plant permanent large trees and use more bitumen from Alberta. The bad example of rich countries requiring "renewable" fuels has led to vast devastations of forests for energy plantations.

Canada has the CANDU reactor and all the Uranium it will ever need, so all electric generation should be turned over to CANDU reactors and the coal and gas then not used can be made into liquid fuels if needed.

I forgot to mention that there is, not even in Canada, enough crop and forest land to produce a small fraction of their demand for energy.

It would be better to use the land for INFINIA's parabolic solar generators than to grow corn on it for energy and many times more efficient. A buried direct current grid can collect the energy from millions of these units and the the coal not used can be made into fuel in addition to the methane not used for the processing of ethanol. ..HG..


HG: I agree with you that we have many more cleaner solutions to produce all the energy we need now and in the future. Except for useless wastes, we should not try to grow crops for liquid fuels. Mind you, the current way to extract fuel from tar sands (with all pollution created) is not that much better.

In the long run, producing clean electricity and use it directly or indirectly to replace all fossil liquid fuels should be a national goal to reach within 30 years or so.

Of course, nuclear power should be part of the energy mix together with solar, wind, hydro, etc.

There is not wrong with well built, well managed nuclear power plants.

Tim Duncan

Why don't the Canadians build a nuke plant to power the oil sands extraction process? The juice can be used for any part of the upgrading, pumping, heating, etc. The waste heat (of which there is a lot in a nuke plant) is very compatible with the low quality requirements of the steam & warm water process I saw up there. This would get the carbon efficiency way up to placate the tree GHG band wagon, just in case they are not all cooking the books. The continued development of this fatastic resource needs to be protected from political/evironmental hystaria on as many fronts as possible. It would also displace billions of cu-ft of natural gas, a mobile and highly flexible fuel for electrical, heating, industrial chemical and hopefully more transportation applications.


TD: This (good idea) has been talked about for the last 20 years. It seems that anti-nuclear lobbies are stronger that anti-tar sands extraction pollution. Another reason is the current very low cost of NG.


If you grow wheat, you have wheat straw. Gasify that and synthesize what ever fuel you need. Put the fuel plants close to the biomass and pipe the fuel out to points of use.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)