The Energy Transition and technologies

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Matata

Alberta's energy costs aren't 5x BC costs. I mean that in AB a kWh of electricity is ~5x more expensive than a kWh of natural gas (1 GJ = 278 kWh). Natural gas rates in AB are currently in the $5-6/GJ range, so 1/2 of BC's rates. Electricity rates in AB are typically +$0.10/kWh, usually close to but a little lower than BC.

Yeah, I see what you're saying. I was thinking you meant that heat pumps were 5-6x more to operate. So once you account for the 2.5 COP and those prices, it's about 2x the cost to operate heat pumps in Alberta vs gas. And that's assuming that the $5-6/GJ is all in, and not just the cost of the gas. If you're paying more for transmission/delivery and whatnot, then you need to include that as well (for both).

Alberta isn't a great candidate for them, but I think almost everywhere else around the world is.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Matata

No ones projecting the cost of electricity to go down. You can expect rates to increase by ~4% year over year, natural gas is projected at a 2% year over year increase.

I will be shocked if the pool price doesn't come down when Cascade comes online.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

I will be shocked if the pool price doesn't come down when Cascade comes online.

You should probably flip the breaker first then.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

You should probably flip the breaker first then.

The pun was unintentional, I'm definitely not that clever.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Based on what I see, I think this pace will continue until such time that the PPA money dries up.



The Amazons and Ikeas of the world have pretty deep pockets when it comes to ESG/Net Zero targets.

I would imagine as the connection queues get longer pace will have to slow. How would this transition look if more provinces and states were deregulated? The biggest hurdle is changing the inertia of a bunch of monopolies continuing business as usual.

[Street Pharmacist]

Also, what happens when the ppp money is still desperate for an input, but Alberta doesn't need anymore generation? Sell down south? Or maybe the incredibly low prices at that point will cause the BC to start thinking about interconnection?

[Torture]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Also, what happens when the ppp money is still desperate for an input, but Alberta doesn't need anymore generation? Sell down south? Or maybe the incredibly low prices at that point will cause the BC to start thinking about interconnection?

I've said it before, but expanding interties between neighbouring provinces just makes too much damn sense. Risk mitigation, pricing, base load, there's so many reasons.

I know there's challenging politics and private/public market concerns but it's a win/win and it sure would be nice to see the respective Governments looking ahead.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Also, what happens when the ppp money is still desperate for an input, but Alberta doesn't need anymore generation? Sell down south? Or maybe the incredibly low prices at that point will cause the BC to start thinking about interconnection?

IMO any power transfer south from Alberta won't be through BC, at least not in the near term. All of that stuff is subject to the Columbia River Treaty, which is currently under negotiation.

Montana isn't really an option as more people live in Calgary than the entire state.

[Slanter]

Wow, I am super glad I wandered into this thread.

I have been thinking about significantly changing my house's energy systems, but I've had a hard time finding answers to key questions. The discussions about heat pumps above already helped, but I'll try to explain my journey so far:

-I was interested in installing solar on my roof. Talked to a few companies, am currently looking at a proposal to install a 9.7kW DC array.
-I filled out the application to the Canada Greener Homes grant, and got the energy audit done.
-The top suggestion from the energy audit was to install a heat pump. Other suggestions included upgrading insulation, new windows, and some discussion about solar (amongst other things)
-At about the same time, my furnace failed an inspection (about 20 years old). Need a new furnace.
-So I've been talking to some HVAC guys about a new furnace and the potential to include a heat pump or AC (don't currently have an AC).
-I like the idea of going to a heat pump, because I could then cool my house in summer, and heat with electricity (nominally produced by my solar array) at least down to a certain temperature in winter. I also kind of need the additional electrical consumption to get my solar array approved by Enmax.
-I don't yet know what the purchase/installation cost of the heat pump would be in excess of just a standard furnace/AC system. Haven't had a ton of luck finding a company who seems knowledgeable/stoked about heat pumps. But haven't talked to too many people.

I guess some of my current questions would be:

-With the current composition of the Alberta grid, does running a heat pump make sense (from a carbon emissions standpoint) vs. heating with natural gas? I mean, sure my solar panels will help, but if I go with a heat pump, I think my net electricity consumption/production will still mean I'm buying some power from the grid. I kind of looked into this when getting an EV (I bought a plug-in hybrid), and the Alberta grid has improved enough that an EV charged off the Alberta grid is a net win for carbon emissions. But it's not a huge win. I wonder what the margin looks like for a heat pump vs. gas furnace.
-I'm kind of concerned that the heat pump will cost me more to run than natural gas (I'm still trying to digest the numbers above... will work on that). This is not a huge concern... I guess I'll have the gas furnace as a hedge if electricity prices go wild, and I'm actually more interested in the carbon emission reductions than the cost savings. Yes, I'd like this transition to save me money in the long run, but even something close to break even is okay with me.

Cool thread. If my contribution is useful, I'd be happy to talk more about some of the quotes I've got, etc.

[GGG]

On the one hand over the 15-25 year life of the heat pump the grid is going to green itself up more where the average KW likely makes the heat pump reduce CO2.

On the other hand the I don’t think average is the way to look at it. The question is the marginal KW. Essentially if we are always bribing gas for power then I think it’s better to think of any new electrical loads as being natural gas powered because that is where the swing demand is coming from

[blender]

Some heat pump notes:
If sized and operated properly they are very efficient. One of the biggest issues is they are often too big for the space they are heating/cooling. They are at their best when they run steadily to maintain a set temperature. If they are too big they cycle off and on and waste power.
Heat pumps are not all created equal and you get what you pay for. Japanese brands are the best. Bargain heat pumps aren't worth the price.
You will need a professional to do an energy audit on your home to properly size the pump. Your information from your solar audit should be transferable.

[Street Pharmacist]

In this transition there's so many weird things that make what seems difficult big picture much easier when looked at more closely. A couple interesting examples:

-some estimates are that almost 40% of shipping miles transport coal, oil, gas, and petrochemicals. While electrifying everything will not totally eliminate this as these will still be used for some things, that significantly decarbonizes the shipping industry without doing anything else. While not to the same extent, how many road miles are traveled to move these products on land?

-Ethanol for fuel uses up almost 40% of corn production in the US. Using even 1/3 of that land for solar production would be all the solar needed to fuel all the vehicle miles driven in the country. Caveats are of course that you'd need batteries and there's probably better places to put solar, etc. But it does put in perspective the crazy amount of resources being used to displace about 10% of current gasoline use


Yes electrifying everything will create more electricity demand. But the demand isn't going to be current demand plus new. It's far more complex with demand becoming more flexible, efficient and smart. Plus there is some demand destruction by not using fossil fuels as shown above. How much energy is saved by not exploring, producing, transporting, refining and selling the fossil fuels?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Torture

I've said it before, but expanding interties between neighbouring provinces just makes too much damn sense. Risk mitigation, pricing, base load, there's so many reasons.

I know there's challenging politics and private/public market concerns but it's a win/win and it sure would be nice to see the respective Governments looking ahead.

No kidding, but for whatever reason every province with excess capacity sells it south first. Which I don't get, as I'm sure the regulatory requirements are higher.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by Azure

No kidding, but for whatever reason every province with excess capacity sells it south first. Which I don't get, as I'm sure the regulatory requirements are higher.

South might be a closer market than E/W? Or perhaps the Americans are willing to pay more for it?

[Azure]

They are signing 20-30 year agreements, for rates which I'm sure adjoining provinces would be happy to pay as well. Obviously there has to be an additional benefit, but I find it strange that Sask & Alberta haven't had agreements with Manitoba Hydro going back years, but Wisconsin as an example has.

I think Sask started buying from Manitoba Hydro in 2016.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Slanter

Wow, I am super glad I wandered into this thread.

I have been thinking about significantly changing my house's energy systems, but I've had a hard time finding answers to key questions. The discussions about heat pumps above already helped, but I'll try to explain my journey so far:

-I was interested in installing solar on my roof. Talked to a few companies, am currently looking at a proposal to install a 9.7kW DC array.
-I filled out the application to the Canada Greener Homes grant, and got the energy audit done.
-The top suggestion from the energy audit was to install a heat pump. Other suggestions included upgrading insulation, new windows, and some discussion about solar (amongst other things)
-At about the same time, my furnace failed an inspection (about 20 years old). Need a new furnace.
-So I've been talking to some HVAC guys about a new furnace and the potential to include a heat pump or AC (don't currently have an AC).
-I like the idea of going to a heat pump, because I could then cool my house in summer, and heat with electricity (nominally produced by my solar array) at least down to a certain temperature in winter. I also kind of need the additional electrical consumption to get my solar array approved by Enmax.
-I don't yet know what the purchase/installation cost of the heat pump would be in excess of just a standard furnace/AC system. Haven't had a ton of luck finding a company who seems knowledgeable/stoked about heat pumps. But haven't talked to too many people.

I guess some of my current questions would be:

-With the current composition of the Alberta grid, does running a heat pump make sense (from a carbon emissions standpoint) vs. heating with natural gas? I mean, sure my solar panels will help, but if I go with a heat pump, I think my net electricity consumption/production will still mean I'm buying some power from the grid. I kind of looked into this when getting an EV (I bought a plug-in hybrid), and the Alberta grid has improved enough that an EV charged off the Alberta grid is a net win for carbon emissions. But it's not a huge win. I wonder what the margin looks like for a heat pump vs. gas furnace.
-I'm kind of concerned that the heat pump will cost me more to run than natural gas (I'm still trying to digest the numbers above... will work on that). This is not a huge concern... I guess I'll have the gas furnace as a hedge if electricity prices go wild, and I'm actually more interested in the carbon emission reductions than the cost savings. Yes, I'd like this transition to save me money in the long run, but even something close to break even is okay with me.

Cool thread. If my contribution is useful, I'd be happy to talk more about some of the quotes I've got, etc.

I'm definitely interested in updates. Especially with regards to product selection and finding an HVAC willing to do it

[Julio]

Originally Posted by Azure

They are signing 20-30 year agreements, for rates which I'm sure adjoining provinces would be happy to pay as well. Obviously there has to be an additional benefit, but I find it strange that Sask & Alberta haven't had agreements with Manitoba Hydro going back years, but Wisconsin as an example has.

I think Sask started buying from Manitoba Hydro in 2016.

Sask has been buying from Man Hydro for years, but have greatly increased that in the last few years with new transmission lines being built.

It seems like power suppliers in Canada don't play that well amongst themselves. It seems that relying on interprovincial transmission for anything other than occasional help is the exception rather than the rule in Canada.

[Azure]

There is obviously a major economic win associated with the initial pipeline and liquefaction facility construction required for LNG projects. The additional carry-on economic win from resource development however is the requirement to continually provide supply to sustain LNG volumes for the 30-plus year life of these projects. A 4.0 bcf/day LNG export terminal will require approximately 1.5 bcf/day of new supply created every year to offset declines. This, in turn, requires approximately $3.0-3.5 billion of capital investment ‘back in the Basins’ every year for decades – a massive repeatable economic win in terms of jobs, revenues, and taxes for the entire country.

The win from a Canadian LNG industry is just as compelling from an environmental performance and emission reduction perspective. Each bcf/day of LNG will reduce carbon emissions by approximately 15 MT/year if utilized to replace coal in electrical generation in the landed country. That same 4 bcf/day project we were considering would reduce annual emissions from the entire Canadian oil and gas industry by a full 25 per cent. If we choose to grow our Canadian LNG business to 10 bcf/day, we’re looking at an opportunity for Canada to lead the world in global emissions reduction.

And this is a true net reduction for the world. The atmosphere has no borders so replacing coal with gas in China or India is a true 60 MT/year reduction for the world. The second key consideration is that our Canadian gas industry produces on average the world’s lowest-emission natural gas, and our leading clean-tech industry is allowing us to get cleaner, faster than anyone else. The gas is going to be supplied to the countries that demand it; China, India and now Europe, whether Canadian methane molecules show up or not. The global atmosphere is a net loser in that case as the gas will be sourced from producing jurisdictions with a higher emission profile.

The final goal in our hat trick is scored by the opportunity to improve First Nation prosperity. The majority of First Nations in Western Canada are very supportive of oil and gas development as it’s seen as an opportunity for long-term, high-quality employment and a sustained higher standard of living. Be it Indigenous-owned service companies, a growing reclamation business sector, direct employment with producers, or equity investment in pipeline projects; the First Nations’ economic opportunities are myriad if we become a major global LNG player. We need to ensure this opportunity is not lost.

https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/co...ick-for-canada

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Azure

https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/co...ick-for-canada

I agree with the general sentiment there, but again I'm not sure of the economics here. LNG is only a win if it bumps coal, but almost 95% of all new electricity generation being added by 2026 is renewables and gas generation is flat or shrinking. Coal is falling fastest but it's being replaced by renewables, not gas. LNG is hot right now because Russia's gas needs to be replaced, but that's a one time adjustment and opening an LNG terminal in 2028 isn't going to see the benefit.

IEA projects a drop in global gas demand by 75% in the net zero scenario and 20% in the Announce Pledges scenario by 2050. As we've seen, their outlooks have often been too conservative. Europe is looking at getting off LNG as soon as they can because of the volatility and national security issues. The only real "hot" market for LNG is only about 4-5 years and I don't see any new project even open in that timeframe never mind a pay back.

Germany came to Canada hoping for a miracle, but knew they couldn't possibly get gas from us over the next 2-3 years which is when they will really need it most. I know nothing about building infrastructure like gas lines, but I cannot see an Atlantic LNG terminal and pipeline from the west being ready by 2026 even if we solved all territorial issues and environmental disputes today. As an economist said recently, Canada isn't a real country. It's a group of 13 territories and provinces that do more in trade with other places than each other and have little incentive to work together. Unfortunately, we've missed the LNG gravy boat

[timun]

Originally Posted by blender

Some heat pump notes:
If sized and operated properly they are very efficient. One of the biggest issues is they are often too big for the space they are heating/cooling. They are at their best when they run steadily to maintain a set temperature. If they are too big they cycle off and on and waste power.

In Calgary's climate the requisite heating capacity is significantly more than cooling, so it's not uncommon that either

1) the cooling capacity is grossly oversized and you get short-cycling as you described, or
2) you quite deliberately undersize the heating capacity and leave the deficit for a "back-up" gas-fired or electric (resistive) furnace.

Option 2) isn't so bad really, as you need the additional heat source for peak conditions anyway, but it means deliberately less use of the heating cycle and not taking advantage of outdoor conditions where the heat pump's COP could be significantly better than the thermal efficiency of your furnace.