The Energy Transition and technologies

[DoubleK]

If they truly have doubled the energy density of an EV battery this is a major breakthrough.

[Fuzz]

Solid state batteries are a bit like cold fusion, but slightly more attainable. I'll believe it when I see it.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

This is pretty awesome.





https://www.theguardian.com/business...-electric-cars

While that'd be great, again one of the biggest issues aside from making claims about magic batteries, is: "What are they made of and can you acquire those materials?"

[Azure]

Surprised that hasn't been posted yet.

A Canadian utility is starting early work to expand a nuclear plant, potentially building the world’s biggest facility as growing demand for clean energy spurs interest in atomic energy.

The Ontario government said Wednesday Bruce Power will conduct an environmental assessment of adding as much as 4.8 gigawatts of capacity to its plant in Canada’s most-populous province. The plant’s eight reactors currently have about 6.2 gigawatts of capacity and supply 30% of the province’s power.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...nned-in-canada

[DoubleK]

I wouldn't go anywhere near building a nuke right now, not unless I had 3x the budget.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

This is pretty awesome.











https://www.theguardian.com/business...-electric-cars

I hate being negative Nancy about this stuff, but Toyota has been touting their future solid state battery for many years. They've been working in solid state batteries since at least 2016. Last month they claimed 900 miles and a major reduction in emissions (how? Dunno). It first was supposed to be in production by 2021, now 2027. They're waaaay behind in the EV transition because they continued to put every egg in the hydrogen fuel cells and their board is clamoring for change to EV.

Solid state is probably the future but if I was going to put money on it I'd not have Toyota using it first and it will probably be in the 2030's. There's a bunch of companies making working solid state batteries but finding a solution that's scalable has been completely elusive. Ceramic coating with zero imperfections and one atom thick sheets of graphite aren't cheap or scalable to produce

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

I wouldn't go anywhere near building a nuke right now, not unless I had 3x the budget.

It basically bankrupted Ontario Hydro the last time we did it. What's a 2nd bankruptcy between friends. Memories of that old Ontario Hydro debt retirement line on everyone's electricity bills for 20 years is always a crowd pleaser.

[Street Pharmacist]

Deployment of nuclear and renewables within 3 years will start causing declining CO2 emissions from electricity production. Might also put a dent in LNG and coal consumption projections.

Renewables will cover almost all of global electricity demand growth out to 2025, becoming the world’s top source of electricity within three years, new figures reveal.

Carbon Brief analysis of figures in the#International Energy Agency#(IEA)#electricity market report 2023#shows that renewables, combined with resurgent nuclear power, will more than cover growth in electricity demand between 2022 and 2025.

This means clean-energy sources will start displacing fossil fuels. As a result, global power-sector carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions will plateau or decline, despite rapidly rising demand.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/renewabl...ampaign=buffer

[Fuzz]

This means clean-energy sources will start displacing fossil fuels.

I'll believe it when I see it. Given the increasing electrical demand, and necessity to backup a lot of intermittent renewables with reliable sources, I'm not convinced renewables are going to offset so much as add to.

[Table 5]

Yeah, new forms of energy don't really replace old forms of energy....they just get added to the overall pile as society advances and energy demand grows. Eg, despite us in the west thinking it's outdated, globally we actually use more coal today then we did a hundred years ago (even if it's % in the overall mix is down).



New tech will not replace coal or oil or gas... it will just be added to it. There are still many parts of the world where people are looking to better their lives who will be taking the next step on the energy consumption ladder, and they will use whatever is most accessible and affordable to them. China is an energy monster and will use anything and everything...despite them having a hand in every new tech pie out there, in 2022 alone, China permitted about 2 new coal plants per week. India is probably about 20 years behind in terms of growth, and is about to surpass China in population. Africa is probably another 20 years behind them and has a lot to do to catch up.

Global energy demand is going nowhere but up over the next few decades...and it will not be an "either/or" scenario...it will be "all of the above".

[SeeGeeWhy]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

I wouldn't go anywhere near building a nuke right now, not unless I had 3x the budget.

Mega project aversion is a big part of what has us in this mess.

Ontario is in great shape to execute a set of new builds and are going to nail what they’ve announced. The Bruce refurb just finished its current phase half a year ahead of schedule and on budget. That’s going to have a very positive impact on the next phase and should dovetail nicely with a Pickering refurb, which will roll nicely with the new darlington plans and let’s hope more at Wesleyville.

There is an absolute ass load happening in the nuclear space right now and thank goodness.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Given the increasing electrical demand, and necessity to backup a lot of intermittent renewables with reliable sources, I'm not convinced renewables are going to offset so much as add to.

Originally Posted by Table 5

Global energy demand is going nowhere but up over the next few decades...and it will not be an "either/or" scenario...it will be "all of the above".

Yes and no. Energy demand is falling in the developed world. Population growth is flattening.

There's a bunch of people looking to move from developing to developed lifestyles that absolutely represent a lot of future demand. But as it sits today, it looks like there is an end-game for building out new generation, not some ever increasing demand.

[CliffFletcher]

The Economist just did a feature on the astonishing price of trying to meet zero emissions growth in the developing world.

The choice between a poorer today and a hotter tomorrow

…In 2000 the developing world, excluding China, accounted for less than 30% of annual carbon emissions. By 2030 it will account for the majority. The Grantham Institute, a think-tank at the London School of Economics, estimates that at this point poor countries will need to spend $2.8trn a year in order to reduce emissions and protect their economies against climate change…

Researchers at the imf who have analysed data from 72 developing countries since 1990 find that there is an unfortunate pattern: a 1% rise in annual gdp is on average followed by a 0.7% rise in emissions...

To reach net-zero emissions by 2050, the International Energy Agency, an official forecaster, reckons developing countries would have to spend at least $300bn on renewable grids until 2030, five times their current outgoings.

https://www.economist.com/finance-an...otter-tomorrow

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The Economist just did a feature on the astonishing price of trying to meet zero emissions growth in the developing world.

It's a global problem.

We all got the benefits of developing via the cheapest available energy, and did some serious damage to the entire planet as a result.

Those of us who reaped that benefit now need to invest in helping the rest of that world go through the same transition without adding onto the damage we left to the same extent.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

Yes and no. Energy demand is falling in the developed world. Population growth is flattening.

The developed world maybe be flattening out, but they only make up like a fifth of the global population. The majority of the growth is in developing countries...and the share of people living in those countries is increasing. According to the UN, the share of people living in developing countries has increased from 66% in 1950 to 83% now, and should reach 86% by 2050.

Top 10 countries by population:
1. India
2. China
3. US
4. Indonesia
5. Pakistan
6. Nigeria
7. Brazil
8. Bangladesh
9. Russia
10. Mexico

In terms of future population growth rate, the top countries tend to be in Africa and Asia, typically places that have room to grow in terms of quality of life. These people want the same things we do... burgeoning economies and industry, stable electricity grids, cars, air conditioning, electronics, roads, airplanes, etc. All things that require a ton of energy.

There is of course some theoretical global energy demand maximum, but don't expect that to happen anytime soon.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

It's a global problem.

We all got the benefits of developing via the cheapest available energy, and did some serious damage to the entire planet as a result.

Those of us who reaped that benefit now need to invest in helping the rest of that world go through the same transition without adding onto the damage we left to the same extent.

Saying something ought to happen is the easy part. The investments necessary to meet zero emissions growth targets in the developing world are enormous. Far, far, more money than any government has even proposed, let alone made good on.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Saying something ought to happen is the easy part. The investments necessary to meet zero emissions growth targets in the developing world are enormous. Far, far, more money than any government has even proposed, let alone made good on.

Amen.

Working in the industry, affordability is a HUGE concern as virtually all of these costs are recovered through rates. Further, mothballing or retrofitting a carbon emitting generator prior to the end of its economic life doesn't help with the affordability problem.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Yeah, new forms of energy don't really replace old forms of energy....they just get added to the overall pile as society advances and energy demand grows. Eg, despite us in the west thinking it's outdated, globally we actually use more coal today then we did a hundred years ago (even if it's % in the overall mix is down).



New tech will not replace coal or oil or gas... it will just be added to it. There are still many parts of the world where people are looking to better their lives who will be taking the next step on the energy consumption ladder, and they will use whatever is most accessible and affordable to them. China is an energy monster and will use anything and everything...despite them having a hand in every new tech pie out there, in 2022 alone, China permitted about 2 new coal plants per week. India is probably about 20 years behind in terms of growth, and is about to surpass China in population. Africa is probably another 20 years behind them and has a lot to do to catch up.

Global energy demand is going nowhere but up over the next few decades...and it will not be an "either/or" scenario...it will be "all of the above".

It is dependent on asset depreciation. Yes, the pie grows but you can see with your own chart that less favorable energy sources do decline in growth and stabilize as a proportion of the energy production bucket. But not included is the depreciation timeline on these power producing assets; especially with recent incentive regimes in the west, the next generation of power producing assets that replace coal/ng generators as those assets reach their lifespan are likely going to be nuclear or another renewable source.

The ultimate LNG Market imo depends on society's willingness to accept CCUS technology. Do we believe that this tech is as effective as billed at reducing carbon intensity at point source? Or is the leakage value much higher than anticipated, resulting in less abatement than hoped for in the near term?
If we can get society to view NG with CCUS produced energy as a carbon neutral or ultra low carbon intensity source, we will have our market. But if we fail then we will see NG become as unpopular as coal.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

It's a global problem.

We all got the benefits of developing via the cheapest available energy, and did some serious damage to the entire planet as a result.

Those of us who reaped that benefit now need to invest in helping the rest of that world go through the same transition without adding onto the damage we left to the same extent.

Cheapest at the time.

Will oil/coal be cheaper than solar/wind in the future? Those costs are decreasing quickly.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

It is dependent on asset depreciation. Yes, the pie grows but you can see with your own chart that less favorable energy sources do decline in growth and stabilize as a proportion of the energy production bucket. But not included is the depreciation timeline on these power producing assets; especially with recent incentive regimes in the west, the next generation of power producing assets that replace coal/ng generators as those assets reach their lifespan are likely going to be nuclear or another renewable source.

The ultimate LNG Market imo depends on society's willingness to accept CCUS technology. Do we believe that this tech is as effective as billed at reducing carbon intensity at point source? Or is the leakage value much higher than anticipated, resulting in less abatement than hoped for in the near term?
If we can get society to view NG with CCUS produced energy as a carbon neutral or ultra low carbon intensity source, we will have our market. But if we fail then we will see NG become as unpopular as coal.

I can't see this being an issue if done properly. If you use an old reservoir it is already proven to be sealed(speaking in generalities), or there wouldn't be gas there.