[Frequitude]

Great responses. Thanks for taking the time. I’ll try to group the salient points as best I can.

Originally Posted by Major Major

Do these factors support a moratorium or simply the notion that we won't be off gas by 2035? No need to attack our own industry to get this point across. It makes zero sense.

Not particularly fussed, but I can get on board with a short term moratorium while the uncertainty around the CER plays out. It has profound impacts on what firm backup capacity and baseload CCGT/cogens will be able to do, which need to be properly integrated with the right level of renewables.

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

Frequitude:

I don't think anyone is saying wind and solar are THE solution. What I've been saying is they are PART of it, and bringing on all that capacity will help supply the demand as Alberta grows, while hopefully flattening the price spikes.

That’s just it though. They won’t flatten the price spikes, they’ll exacerbate them. Wind/solar bid zero. So that means there will be even more zero-dollar hours in the future, which means the fewer remaining hours will be the only ones for the clean thermal plants to recover a fair return on their capital. Even at a fair amount of, say 8%, spreading that across fewer hours means higher prices in those hours. Night time and those long week+ windless times that happen will get pretty pricey.

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

Peaker plants are apparently exempt from the net zero legislation. So they can continue to operate as is. If there's a business case for more peaker plants, the market SHOULD build them. If prices are spiking regularly, I'd think that would happen.

Only if they are 25MW or less. That’s very tiny. Maybe we’ll just end up building hundreds of 24.9MW unabated peaker plants and keep on pumping CO2 into the air!

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

From what I understand, gas power plants commissioned before 2025 are also exempt.
Anything brought on after that has 20 years to comply. Google tells me the lifespan of a gas turbine that operates 24/7 is around 10 years. The math on the useful life of a gas plant is open to interpretation here, but it's a pretty big timeline; 2 decades to figure out CCUS.

Unfortunately no. Plants commissioned before 2025 must be abated by 2035 or 20 years after commissioning, whichever is later. So anything built before 2015 (a lot) need to abate by 2035 (and as an aside the useful life of a plant is much longer that 20 years). Anything brought on after Jan 1, 2025 much comply by 2035. All CER roads are pointing to abating by 2035.

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

The feds are also committing 40 billion to the provinces over 10 years to achieve their goal. If Alberta is the "problem emitter" in Canada, it stands to reason the bulk of that money will be here.

IMO the federal legislation is largely toothless, there's a PILE of money that is going to be up for grabs from them (on top of the cash already going into the industry) so it makes no sense whatsoever for Smith to pause renewables and pick a fight with Trudeau here. It only makes sense if her goal is whip up her base, which seems to be what is happening.

The feds have grossly underestimated the cost of CER. Alberta alone will be $100B+, I think Ontario has come out with $300B+, Saskatchewan said $40B+. $40B is pennies on the dollar. The cost as they’ve framed it up now will fall squarely on electricity consumers or tax payers. The UCP was 100% spot on when they attacked CER and the NDP's prior endorsement during the election. Similarly, the NDP didn't really counterattack because they realized their old endorsement was uniformed and incorrect.

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

TL/DR IMO go heavy renewables alongside nuclear and have Ottawa help fund it.

I’m with you in theory, unfortunately nuclear is also a relatively baseload power supply so doesn’t pair well with variable wind/solar. Wind/solar only pairs well at scale with large scale hydro, because you can quickly draw down reservoirs during dark windless times, and can pump the water back up hill during sunny windy times when there’s excess power. That’s the problem with more renewables in this province…we don't have access to large scale hydro. So wind/solar are going to mean more natural gas peakers which are incredibly expensive to abate, which means higher power bills to create enough revenue to incentivize their construction.

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I agree that we need thermal to backup renewables. I guess my question is, would this ultimately cost us more? Once installed, solar and wind have low operating costs and produce near free electricity. Would this be enough to offset the cost of backup NG over the life of the plant/solar & wind? I have no idea, but that seems like interesting math.

Unfortunately no. That’s the ironic thing about wind/solar producing “free energy”….they bid zero in the market. So while we will end up with a lot of zero dolar hours, that also leaves much fewer hours for the capitally-intensive-to-build-and-abate firm backup thermal to recover enough money to recover their capital. Squish that desired return into fewer hours and what are you left with…higher prices in those hours. Those clean thermal plants will cost 10's of billions to build. They need to be paid for somehow.

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I also don't really think "we'll do it by 2050 with SMR's" is much of a plan, given no one has proven the economics/success of SMR's at this point. It's wishful thinking pawning off the problem. It also doesn't really make any sense given Alberta's population centres. You should be planing on real reactors, o ryou are just going to need 20 "small" ones in the same spot.

100% agree. If I’m Guillbeault and Alberta comes to me and says “let us off the CER hook and I swear we’ll build nuclear” I respond with “lololololol ya right”. But I do think there’s a genuine path for nuclear deployment in this province backstopped by the oil sands. What do nuclear reactors make first? Steam. Not power. They first make steam that then gets run through turbines. And what does in situ need? Steam. So get the reactors going up there to provide steam as the baseload, then start layering on more with turbines as everything gets built out.

That’s my dream. Huge nuclear, with some wind/solar, and pan-canadian tie lines built to a bunch of new hydro in BC, Manitoba, and Quebec. But good luck getting them to build anymore! New dams aren't exactly in vogue because they displace berries and bunnies, and sometimes people. They also have decent methane emissions.