Quote:
Originally Posted by Frequitude
Ah, I think I follow. I think what you're saying is "if I spend all the extra capex on 20-25 GW of combined capacity, is the reduced opex from all the free renewables hours better economics"?
If so, it would definitely need some math but my gut says no. Capex+returns usually drives the day (especially when you add on the expected project overruns and inflation risks if the whole world is trying to build the same thing at the same time).
Honestly, uncalculated common sense would suggest you'd be better off to just build 10 GW of clean gas for that 10 GW of demand, run it all the time, and never bother with the billions of dollars for that 10-15 GW of wind/solar. Know what I mean? And this wouldn't be a scenario with lots of carbon taxes because CER is forcing that gas to be abated. You can't pay to pollute your way out.
It just seems like, in this province, all roads of more wind/solar just lead to more inefficiencies. But I can't blame them for their rapid expansion. The TIER credits just make them pretty damn economic projects.
|
If you look at the boundary project in Saskatchewan to do CCS off of coal it cost 100% of the Capex and 25%-35% of the power generation of the plant. So likely around double the cost of power. It also benefits as it has a customer for the Carbon and it’s not just straight sequestration.
So even with wind / solar at fairly minimal efficiency during winter it’s likely worth building to a significant degree unless Carbon Capture drastically reduces in cost. And CCS won’t follow a Moore’s law type function like solar does so new capture tech would be required to get significant savings.
I think compressed air batteries or hydro batteries to handle daily and cyclic demand cycles likely end up being the most practical options along side a significant nuclear base load.