Category: English

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Amirreza Torabizadeh, PhD candidate, Civil Engineering, Concordia University

When a large hole recently opened up in the deck of a bridge in Châteauguay, Québec, many people were understandably alarmed. Some residents even expressed hesitation about using the bridge after seeing images of exposed reinforcing steel and damaged concrete, and some told local media they were reluctant to cross it.

For drivers who cross the structure every day, the scene raises a question: how can such a dangerous incident suddenly happen on a bridge that is still open to traffic?

In reality, incidents like these rarely occur overnight. What the public sees as a sudden failure is often the visible result of deterioration that has been developing inside the structure for many years.

Canadian bridges built decades ago

In most cases, what fails in situations like these is not the entire bridge but the deck — the concrete slab that vehicles drive on. While serious, a localized deck failure is different from the collapse of the bridge’s primary load-bearing structure.

Bridges are typically designed with multiple structural components that share loads, and engineers carefully assess these elements before deciding whether traffic can continue safely on part of the structure.

Still, the appearance of such damage highlights a broader challenge facing cities across Canada: aging infrastructure.

Many bridges currently in service were built decades ago, often in the 1950s, ’60s and ’70s. Over time, Canada’s unforgiving environmental conditions gradually deteriorate reinforced concrete structures.

In Québec, the combination of freeze–thaw cycles, water infiltration and the use of de-icing salts during winter creates particularly harsh conditions for bridge decks. Chlorides from road salts can penetrate the concrete and corrode the steel reinforcement inside. As corrosion progresses, the expanding rust causes cracking and separation within the concrete, sometimes leading to pieces of the deck breaking away.

Because this process develops internally, deterioration may not always be immediately visible from the surface. By the time cracks or holes appear, the damage could have progressed for years.

Identifying problems in advance

For engineers, one of the main challenges is to understand what damage means for the structural performance of the entire bridge. Visual inspections remain an essential tool to detect damage, but they don’t always reveal how deterioration affects the structural behaviour of the structure.

Our research has found that computational modelling may provide important insights about how to interpret the damage. Numerical simulations can mimic mechanisms like cracking, material degradation and changes in the interaction between steel reinforcement and concrete. By incorporating these effects into structural analyses, engineers can better estimate how much capacity an aging structure may still retain and identify potential vulnerabilities before they lead to more serious problems.

Read more:
Aging bridges are crumbling. Here’s how new technologies can help detect danger earlier

In addition to the visual inspections and monitoring data, computational modelling can also offer a cost-effective way to assess aging infrastructure. By using simulations, virtually created scenarios allow engineers to investigate how deterioration mechanisms — such as cracking, corrosion or degradation of the bond between reinforcement and concrete —influence the structural behaviour of a bridge.

These simulations can help evaluate how local damage, like deterioration in a bridge deck, may influence how the structure of the bridge could respond. Because these analyses rely primarily on computational tools rather than large-scale physical interventions, they can provide valuable insights at relatively low cost and help guide more informed decisions on maintenance and retrofitting.

Long-term safety

The incident in Châteauguay is yet another reminder that Canada’s infrastructure is rapidly aging. To ensure public safety, policymakers must be proactive instead of reactive.

To ensure safety, better tools must be developed to understand the hidden processes that gradually weaken structures over time. These tools will result in faster and more informed interventions for modern repair and for retrofitting.

As bridges across the country continue to age, ensuring their long-term safety will require a combination of regular inspection, timely maintenance, advanced engineering analysis and the application of effective strengthening techniques when needed.

Troubles may begin with big holes in bridge decks, but they ultimately point to the need for much larger conversations about how governments maintain and renew the infrastructure that millions of people rely on every day.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. What a gaping hole on a bridge reveals about aging infrastructure in Canada – https://theconversation.com/what-a-gaping-hole-on-a-bridge-reveals-about-aging-infrastructure-in-canada-278465

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Madelaine Vanderwerff, Associate Professor, University Library, Mount Royal University

Some Canadian universities are exploring automatic textbook billing programs — sometimes called academic materials programs or “inclusive access” programs.

These are institutional agreements with vendors to provide digital access to course materials, and automatically charge students for them as part of their fees.

Concerns with rising textbook costs are a reality for many students. These are often described as a pressing challenge in policy discussions.

The Canadian Association of Research Libraries has raised concerns about automatic textbook billing, including potential threats to faculty freedom, student privacy and access to diverse learning materials.

As professional academic librarians and faculty members, we share these concerns and agree with some student groups that argue automatic textbook billing programs are the wrong answer to textbook affordability challenges. Here’s why.

Role of libraries

Along with course instructors, librarians play critical roles in supporting student success by providing equitable access to learning materials.

Libraries are positioned to play a role in bolstering equitable access to learning materials for students and supporting faculty to use library collections as well as openly licensed and low- or no-cost materials for teaching and learning where possible.

Libraries have missions of building and providing access to collections that support teaching and learning, especially at small and mid-sized institutions where collections focus on undergraduate courses. They do this through things like textbook buying programs, eBook licensing and journal subscriptions, as well as working with instructors to make specific resources available.

Studies show that libraries’ lending or licensing of course materials can reduce student costs. It can also improve access and engagement with materials.

Claims, evidence and faculty perspectives

To better understand how Canadian universities are addressing course material affordability, we reviewed publicly available policies, campus initiatives and library programs at 22 mid-sized universities (with 7,000–20,000 full-time students).

We also conducted an online survey in English and French, targeting tenured, tenure-track and sessional faculty members at these universities. We received 322 responses from nine provinces, representing faculty from a range of academic disciplines and various levels of teaching experience.

Participants responded to multiple choice, item-ranking and open-ended questions about selecting course materials for a recently taught course and choosing materials more generally.

Faculty reported a wide range of approaches to course materials. Some faculty are embracing the digital learning tools offered by commercial textbook publishers to engage and motivate students, and value these tools as solutions to the workload challenges of teaching large classes.

But, while some rely on commercial textbooks, many use Open Educational Resources, library-licensed materials or freely available content. About 34 per cent of faculty reported not using a textbook at all, instead curating materials that are relevant to their course outcomes and that reduce or eliminate costs for students.

This range of practices reflects deliberate, faculty-led strategies, also documented elsewhere in other research, to balance affordability, accessibility, quality and relevance — approaches that institution-wide billing programs are not designed to support.

Measuring student success

Proponents of automatic textbook billing programs have highlighted benefits, including increased course completion rates, grades and cost savings.

However, faculty in our survey emphasized broader measures of student success. They cited outcomes that are well-established aims of university study, such as academic research competency, information literacy and critical thinking skills.

They also described their course materials in terms of helping students develop these skills, not just providing access to content.

Faculty noted challenges with digital-only textbooks, including poor readability, limited usability and restricted rental periods. Many highlighted the importance of diverse, relevant content from a range of creators reflecting diverse perspectives. These include print-based and independently published materials unavailable from major vendors.

While a majority of faculty in our study were concerned about cost, quality and relevance are their primary concern, and many are responding in context-sensitive ways to the related challenges of affordability pressures and shifting student learning needs.

Local solutions

In a publishing landscape marked by consolidation, elimination of print and restricted digital lending, automatic textbook billing programs may limit faculty choice, reduce diversity of materials and constrain equitable access.

Decisions about course materials reflect instructors’ professional judgment, subject-matter expertise and knowledge of student needs, and are central to academic freedom in teaching.

Faculty we surveyed were clear that course material selection should remain the purview of academic staff, not administrative or non-academic units. This includes the freedom to choose materials, determine how they are used and accessed and decide whether students must pay for materials to learn in their courses.

Read more:
Textbooks could be free if universities rewarded professors for writing them

The answer to textbook affordability isn’t to hand course material decisions to publishers. It’s in partnerships with libraries and investments in open education programs and services that help faculty make better, more equitable choices.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Billing students automatically for textbooks? Look elsewhere to solve affordability issues – https://theconversation.com/billing-students-automatically-for-textbooks-look-elsewhere-to-solve-affordability-issues-274076

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Philippe Le Billon, Professor, Geography Department and School of Public Policy & Global Affairs, University of British Columbia

War is costly. The ongoing American-Israeli war on Iran is already reverberating through the global economy. For most people, including American citizens, it means higher fuel prices and greater economic uncertainty.

But for a narrower group of entities, war can also be extraordinarily profitable. Chief among them are segments of the United States oil and gas industry, which have already profited from Russian President Vladimir Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine and the ensuing sanctions on Russian oil and gas exports.

Now, the escalation of hostilities between the U.S., Israel and Iran has once again rattled global energy markets. Fighting and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz — one of the world’s most important oil shipping routes — have triggered what some have described as “the biggest oil disruption in history.”

Read more:
What is the Strait of Hormuz, and why does its closure matter so much to the global economy?

By early March, oil prices had briefly surged to US$119 per barrel — roughly double their level at the end of 2025. Prices have since settled at near US$100 a barrel, though volatility remains.

The escalation illustrates a familiar pattern in the political economy of fossil fuels: public costs paired with private windfalls.

The shock to global energy markets

Three months ago, few analysts expected 2026 to be a particularly profitable year for fossil fuel producers. Global supply was expanding rapidly and U.S. gas prices were expected to fall below US$3 a gallon.

Production growth in the U.S., Canada, Brazil and Argentina was colliding with weaker demand growth and the ineffectiveness of sanctions on exports from Russia, Iran and Venezuela. Many analysts warned of an emerging glut that could push prices downward. The International Energy Agency, for instance, projected a potential global oil surplus of nearly four million barrels per day in 2026.

That outlook changed abruptly following the U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran and the country’s retaliatory attacks on energy infrastructure and tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic chokepoint that normally carries roughly one-fifth of the world’s traded oil and natural gas.

Even a partial disruption carries immediate consequences.

Though the strait has been a cornerstone of U.S. and world energy security for more than 60 years, the Donald Trump administration apparently underestimated the possibility that the Iranian regime would blockade it and pummel U.S.-allied countries in the region.

For consumers and most businesses, such price spikes function as a tax. Higher energy costs ripple through transport, food production, manufacturing and household budgets. American drivers feel the impact at the pump, while industries dependent on fuel or petrochemicals see their operating costs climb.

The hidden household costs of war

Estimates suggest that for every increase of US$10 per barrel, additional fuel costs amount to roughly US$560 per year per American household, including costs embedded in goods and services.

If prices remain at around US$86 instead of the expected US$51 forecast for 2026, the added burden could reach about US$2,000 per household annually.

These figures do not include the direct military expenditures, which were conservatively estimated at US$11 billion for the first week of strikes against Iran.

Even military spending of US$200 million per day (10 times less than the highest estimates at the current intensity) would amount to an additional cost of US$541 per household annually.

In short, a prolonged war combining high energy prices and sustained military expenditures would likely amount to between three to four per cent of the median U.S. household expenditure — roughly half of what many families spend annually on food or health care.

Lessons from recent wars

Recent history offers revealing precedents.

The costs of the Iraq War (2003 to 2011) for Americans has been estimated at about US$1.2-3 trillion in total long-term costs, equivalent to about US$16,700 to US$41,750 per household in current U.S. dollars. Yet the war did achieve the goal of reopening access to Iraqi oil fields for American oil companies.

More recently, the invasion of Ukraine by Russia cost an estimated one per cent of global GDP in 2022 and added 1.5 per cent to global inflation in 2022-23. Ukraine, of course, paid the largest price for the war, but direct impacts in Europe amounted to about 1 trillion euros.

Much of these costs ultimately translated into profits for oil and gas companies, especially liquefied natural gas (LNG) companies from the U.S. and producers in Australia and the Gulf states.

Profits on a single LNG shipment from the U.S. to Europe increased fivefold from about US$17 million to US$102 million.

A similar dynamic is now unfolding again.

Who really benefits from rising oil prices?

This time, with major Gulf states themselves exposed to the conflict, U.S. and other exporters less directly affected by the war may have even greater room to increase profits. American LNG companies could see windfalls approaching US$20 billion per month.

The main lesson is that petro-states, including Iran, Russia and the U.S., don’t hesitate to go to war partly because they believe oil revenues will bail them out, if not further enrich them.

In fact, in seeking to justify the attack on Iran and the continuation of the conflict, Trump argued that “the United States is the largest oil producer in the world, by far, so when oil prices go up, we make a lot of money.”

This, of course, depends on who “we” refers to. The populations of most petro-states have paid dearly for the wars involving their countries, whether it’s been Angola, Chad, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria, Russia, Syria and now Iran.

The U.S. has fared much better economically, but the gains have been mostly for its companies, not its population. Higher oil and natural gas prices generate enormous revenues for U.S. oil producers and LNG exporters along the Gulf Coast as global gas markets tighten. Investors and shareholders in these sectors stand to gain from rising margins and market valuations.

American households, however, face the opposite effect. Fuel prices rise. Inflationary pressures intensify. Transport and heating costs increase.

The gains accruing to producers are therefore not only partially financed by the most import-dependent countries with the least strategic reserves but also by low-income households who are stuck in a carbon-intensive economy they can least afford to escape.

Philippe Le Billon receives funding from SSHRC.

– ref. As war raises oil prices, households pay while energy companies profit – https://theconversation.com/as-war-raises-oil-prices-households-pay-while-energy-companies-profit-278052

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Taiana Lucia Emmanuel Pereira, Postdoc Fellow, Chemistry, McMaster University

Canada recently signed a new trade agreement with China, reducing tariffs on up to 49,000 Chinese electric vehicles (EVs) each year. By 2030, half of these imported vehicles are anticipated to be “affordable EVs” costing less than $35,000.

This could make electric cars a more budget-friendly option for Canadians. However, public trust remains fragile, shaped largely by fears of EV battery fires.

In 2024, when a high-speed crash on Toronto’s Lake Shore Boulevard resulted in a Tesla bursting into flames, killing four passengers, the images circulated widely online. Months later, another Tesla caught fire on Highway 403 in Ontario, again shutting down traffic.

Evidence shows that the risks of EVs bursting into flames while you drive are low. However, these events have caused some public anxiety.

Solid-state batteries offer a promising new solution. They replace the flammable liquid in existing EV batteries with a solid electrolyte. This reduces the risks of spontaneous combustion when batteries are damaged or when they overheat.

Mercedes-Benz recently trialled an EQS sedan with a solid-state battery. The car drove 1,205 kilometres from Stuttgart in Germany to Malmö in Sweden without a charging stop.

Chinese automaker Chery says it plans to release its first electric vehicle with a solid-state battery later this year. The company says the design could boost energy density and cold-weather performance, with targeted ranges of up to 1,500 kilometres even in sub-zero temperatures.

Canadian researchers are also playing an important role in advancing solid-state technology. I am part of a research team at McMaster University studying battery chemistry at the atomic level to help turn solid-state batteries into a practical technology.

How do lithium-ion batteries work?

EVs rely on lithium-ion batteries rather than gasoline but the basic idea is similar. They store energy and release it when you need it. These batteries are made up of two electrodes: one positive (cathode) and one negative (anode), separated by an electrolyte that allows lithium ions to move between them.

When the battery powers a device or a vehicle, electrons flow through the external circuit to produce electricity, while lithium ions travel inside the battery from the anode to the cathode. Charging the battery simply reverses this process, pushing the lithium ions back to where they started.

How much power a battery can deliver depends largely on how quickly and how many lithium ions can move between the two electrodes.

Today’s batteries rely on liquid electrolytes. This allows lithium ions to move easily and efficiently, giving the car quick acceleration, steady highway performance and consistent response when you press the pedal. How far a car can go on a single charge, however, depends mainly on how much lithium the electrodes can store.

Why do batteries catch fire?

When lithium-ion batteries are damaged or experience internal failures, they can overheat and enter a process known as thermal runaway. This can trigger intense fires that are hard to extinguish and may even reignite hours later.

A major reason is the liquid electrolyte, which is typically made from flammable organic solvents. If the battery overheats, the liquid can act as fuel, worsening the fire. Solid-state battery technology replaces the flammable liquid with a solid electrolyte.

Safer batteries with higher performance?

Solid electrolytes are generally non-volatile and mechanically robust. They reduce the risk of leakage and limit the formation of oxygen-rich volatile decomposition products. They can act as a physical barrier that slows the growth of the lithium filaments that can short-circuit a battery.

Together, these features reduce two major triggers of thermal runaway: internal short circuits and rapid heat-releasing chemical reactions in the electrolyte.

In our research group, we use solid-state nuclear magnetic resonance to understand how lithium ions move inside solid electrolytes. These experiments let us track both the local chemistry and the longer-range ion transport that determine how well a material will work in a battery. By linking these atomic-scale insights to battery performance, we can help design better solid electrolytes for safer electric vehicles.

Beyond safety, solid electrolytes also enable higher-performance batteries. They make it possible to use lithium metal anodes and high-voltage cathodes, which can increase energy density compared to today’s graphite-based batteries.

For EVs, this could mean longer driving range or smaller, lighter battery packs without sacrificing performance.

Why liquid electrolytes still dominate

Despite their safety, liquid electrolytes remain the industry standard.

They provide high ionic conductivity at room temperature, ensuring fast charging, strong acceleration and reliable performance across a wide range of conditions. They also connect well with the electrodes, allowing electricity to flow easily and keeping the battery’s design simpler. Decades of industrial experience have made them relatively inexpensive and easy to manufacture at scale.

In contrast, many solid electrolytes suffer from mechanical brittleness, which means they can crack during battery cycling and lose contact with the electrodes. In addition, solid electrolytes often struggle to make good connections with electrode materials, and chemical reactions at these interfaces can form resistive layers that reduce battery performance.

As a result, while solid-state batteries show great promise, liquid electrolytes have offered the best balance of performance, cost and ease of manufacturing in EVs to date.

Canada’s role in the transition

The recent trade agreement with China could give Canada faster access to the advanced battery technologies already developed at scale in China.

However, many Canadian researchers are already playing an important role in advancing EV battery technology by investigating new electrolyte materials and battery interfaces. Canadian federal programs are supporting battery research, clean-energy initiatives and domestic battery manufacturing, positioning Canada within the global EV transition.

Read more:
Lower tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles could boost adoption and diversify Canada’s trade

Advances in materials science, interface engineering and battery chemistry are improving the performance and durability of solid electrolytes. What once existed only in laboratories is moving into pilot production and early vehicle testing.

In the long run, solid electrolytes could reduce fire risk while enabling longer ranges and lighter battery packs, helping EVs become safer.

Taiana Lucia Emmanuel Pereira receives funding from NSERC and MITACS.

– ref. Will your electric car burst into flames? A solid-state battery would reduce the risk – https://theconversation.com/will-your-electric-car-burst-into-flames-a-solid-state-battery-would-reduce-the-risk-277042

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Alexandra R. Harrington, Visiting Scholar, McGill University Faculty of Law, Centre for Human Rights and Legal Pluralism, McGill University

One of the most alarming incidents to occur in the United States-Israel war against Iran was the recent bombing of a fuel depot in Tehran. Harrowing images showed toxic black smoke blanketing the skies above the city. Residents reported difficulty breathing and burning eyes and turned to wearing face masks.

Soot and toxic chemicals released from the bombing then came down on civilian populations as polluted “black rain,” further exacerbating the health and environmental impacts. In response to the attack, Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araghchi said: “Israel’s bombings of fuel depots in Tehran violate international law and constitute ecocide.”

The attack on the fuel depot is more than a stark reminder of the costs of war. It also tells the story of a large gap in international legal protections for civilians and the environment from the targeting of facilities containing harmful chemicals that are not classified as chemical weapons.

The impacts of pollution and war are often indiscriminate and lasting. Beyond these images is the legacy of long-term damage to human health and the environment stemming from the targeting of such facilities, such as the refining plants targeted during the first Gulf War.

International law contains provisions against the use of chemical weapons in war. However, there is a gap in protections when dangerous toxins are released due to attacks on sites like fuel depots.

These gaps need to be addressed to protect civilians in war, and to uphold environment and human rights standards during wartime and once a conflict ends.

Gaps in the Geneva Conventions

My areas of research focus on international law, specifically environmental and human rights law and intersections with international organizations.

The Geneva Conventions and their protocols serve as the basis for international humanitarian law — the laws applicable to civilians, armed forces and combatants in times of conflict.

The Geneva Conventions are mostly geared toward human protection during combat, especially for civilians living in combat zones or occupied territories as well as for health-care providers and for injured combatants and prisoners of war. In particular, the Fourth Geneva Convention on Civilians provides basic living, health and access to justice protections for populations during wartime.

However, there is nothing in the conventions specifically about sites known to contain chemicals that would cause health or environmental impacts in the short and long-term.

While the Geneva Conventions forbid attacking hospitals, schools and infrastructure necessary for civilian life, they do not address fuel depots, waste management facilities or other sites where chemicals are routinely stored. And there are no requirements for warring entities to provide assistance to enemy territories damaged by attacks on such sites once hostilities cease.

Gaps in the Chemical Weapons Convention

Since 1997, the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) has governed the destruction and non-proliferation of chemical weapons.

This convention includes prohibitions on developing and manufacturing chemical weapons and outlines acceptable methods of reducing and eliminating chemical weapons stockpiles in signatory countries.

The CWC addresses facilities containing chemical weapons only in the context of safety until the chemicals can be destroyed.

It is an essential tool in protecting humanity from the development, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. But the convention doesn’t cover all chemicals, nor does it address attacks on facilities containing chemicals that turn them into dangerous weapons against civilian populations.

Other agreements and treaties

There are also several multilateral environmental agreements that address chemicals in some form: the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade, the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants and the Minamata Convention on Mercury, as well as the Global Framework on Chemicals, a recently adopted soft law instrument.

These are critical agreements and instruments in many ways, but they focus on the production, use and transportation of chemicals. They do not address intentional acts of destruction during peacetime or conflict.

Additionally, there are many core human rights treaties that provide protections to all, especially women, children, those with disabilities and persons in situations of vulnerability. But these are not fully applicable in times of conflict.

Even at the end of a conflict, there are no provisions in these agreements that would impose liability or otherwise seek to address environmental damage from acts taken in wartime with lasting and generational impacts on the environment and human health.

Moving forward

Conflict is inherently intertwined with environmental damage and human suffering. This is particularly true today, when larger and more destructive weapons can cause lasting and even irreversible damage.

The international community has responded in the past to these harsh realities by enacting prohibitions aimed at protecting people. These provisions must be updated and expanded to ensure they remain applicable to current methods and ideologies used in warfare.

The targeting of the Tehran fuel depot demonstrates the need for changes to the Geneva Conventions at the very least, and also an appraisal of how to connect international environmental law and human rights law with the legacy of environmental damage in wartime.

Adding the crime of ecocide to the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction could help.

But a larger conversation is needed to ensure that targeting facilities containing chemicals is not an accepted practice in future conflicts. The conversation is about the need for warfare to reflect what we have learned about the toxic legacies of indiscriminate use and targeting of chemicals as weapons of war, which scar the environment and humanity for generations.

Alexandra R. Harrington does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Israeli strikes on Tehran oil depot highlight gaps in international law – https://theconversation.com/israeli-strikes-on-tehran-oil-depot-highlight-gaps-in-international-law-278380