The Energy Transition and technologies

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Yeah I’ve been dreaming of this for a decade. AB could have been bank rolling Nuclear tech with oil sales, and they’d be an even bigger cash cow now than they were before. It’s like dreaming about the centre Iginla never had, it just makes me sad now. Huge miss.

I can't think of a more profound lost opportunity for this country. I don't think it's too late either, but the cookie dough for brains leaders we have are completely clueless. Wish I had the influence and money to at least give it a go.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by zamler

If every car in Canada was electric could we realistically improve the grid to handle it? Elon Musk has said if every car was an EV the grid would have to double in capacity. Is that feasible?

Call me crazy but we should be producing oil as much as possible and using the revenue to become a world leader in clean energy. The amount of oil used globally will not change if Canada stops producing it, so why not leverage the resource?

Continue producing oil at our current record rate for as long as there are consumers even as the price goes up, sure. Expanding our production….not going to happen for a variety of reasons.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by zamler

If every car in Canada was electric could we realistically improve the grid to handle it? Elon Musk has said if every car was an EV the grid would have to double in capacity. Is that feasible?

I don't think doubling is accurate. Most estimates I've seen with 100% electric car use is a 25-30% increase in overall electricity usage. I guess it'd depend on how much electricity a place uses now. Places like BC or Quebec that heat with electricity would need a smaller increase in overall capacity than places that don't use as much electricity currently. And given that Canada is a net exporter of electricity, in the long run we might not need to increase generation capacity all that much.

And there are also ways to mitigate the impact on the grid like different electricity rates at different times and/or smart chargers to encourage off-peak charging.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Power generation is a bit of a red herring for almost all of Canada outside of the prairies. Over 80% of Canada's electricity generation is Hydro/Nuclear/Wind/Solar/other renewables, and about 75% of Canada's combustible fuel power generation is happening in just Alberta and Saskatchewan (and a significant and increasing majority of that is from gas).

So talking about natural gas and nuclear as magic bullets is kind of misplaced for Canada, at least until we have the technology to electrify heavy industry, agriculture, oil & gas production, etc. SMRs can help with some of that (particularly heavy industry and a portion of its heat requirements), but they're still in their infancy right now.

Not misplaced at all, as we need to be exporting it as LNG to the rest of the world.

Also, just because the majority of our power is coming from hydro, it doesn't mean that the majority of our heating & cooling is being done with electric.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Azure

Not misplaced at all, as we need to be exporting it as LNG to the rest of the world.

Also, just because the majority of our power is coming from hydro, it doesn't mean that the majority of our heating & cooling is being done with electric.

Obviously the cooling is primarily done with electricity, what else would it be? And what heating isn't being done with electricity is mostly being done with natural gas for economic reasons. Heat pumps work great in more temperate areas and operating costs can rival gas. But their Coefficient of Performance drops pretty rapidly in the types of temperatures a lot of places in Canada see in the winter, making them less viable. And building up expensive nuclear power plants to power heat pumps in very cold climates (while likely better for the environment) will get very expensive, very fast (like probably triple the operating cost with current heat pump technology, never mind the capital costs).

If the electricity is extremely cheap and clean (like in Quebec) it can be a viable option in cold climates. But even SMRs are going to be pretty expensive relative to what they can produce, meaning the electricity will be more expensive and running a heat pump at a COP of 2 or something like that won't really be cost effective.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by opendoor

I don't think doubling is accurate. Most estimates I've seen with 100% electric car use is a 25-30% increase in overall electricity usage. I guess it'd depend on how much electricity a place uses now. Places like BC or Quebec that heat with electricity would need a smaller increase in overall capacity than places that don't use as much electricity currently. And given that Canada is a net exporter of electricity, in the long run we might not need to increase generation capacity all that much.

And there are also ways to mitigate the impact on the grid like different electricity rates at different times and/or smart chargers to encourage off-peak charging.

Maybe not just from EVs, but I think at least doubling the capacity of the grid is realistic. Whether it's EVs or other uses, one of the key strategies for achieving net zero is to "electrify everything" so yeah, we're going to need major investments in the grid.

If everybody tried to plug in and charge an electric car right now when they got home from work at ~5-6, while turning on their oven and starting to cook dinner, we'd overwhelm the grid easily.

Edit: Anywhere from 38-70% increase in capacity is needed according to Pembina institute

Canada has a legislated commitment to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050. This will require pursuing several deep decarbonization pathways including electrification of end uses such as transportation and heating buildings. A study by the Canadian Institute for Climate Choices found that all paths to net-zero emissions required more electricity — anywhere from 38% to 70% more from 2018 levels. Even though electricity currently produces only 12% of Canada’s emissions, decarbonizing electricity grids is essential as more sectors make the switch from fossil fuels. Canada’s current goal is to generate 90% of electricity from emissions-free sources by 2030 and net-zero before 2050.

Oh and here's a good pod on grid needs in the future.
https://arcenergyinstitute.com/trans...energy-canada/

[Azure]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Obviously the cooling is primarily done with electricity, what else would it be? And what heating isn't being done with electricity is mostly being done with natural gas for economic reasons. Heat pumps work great in more temperate areas and operating costs can rival gas. But their Coefficient of Performance drops pretty rapidly in the types of temperatures a lot of places in Canada see in the winter, making them less viable. And building up expensive nuclear power plants to power heat pumps in very cold climates (while likely better for the environment) will get very expensive, very fast (like probably triple the operating cost with current heat pump technology, never mind the capital costs).

If the electricity is extremely cheap and clean (like in Quebec) it can be a viable option in cold climates. But even SMRs are going to be pretty expensive relative to what they can produce, meaning the electricity will be more expensive and running a heat pump at a COP of 2 or something like that won't really be cost effective.

There are many, many more uses for nuclear power in Canada than simply grid generation. The whole point of the SMRs is to displace dirty energy sources that are used in production, manufacturing, etc. One area where this could be deployed is in the oilsands, chemical and fertilizer production, etc.

In our business we are geothermal for heating & cooling, but we still make heavy use of propane for other needs. I'd venture a guess this is similar across Canada. (not saying nuclear replaces propane, but the applications are endless on a bigger scale).

Also, small scale reactors are probably going to be cheaper than $20 billion dollar hydro plants.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by Azure

There are many, many more uses for nuclear power in Canada than simply grid generation. The whole point of the SMRs is to displace dirty energy sources that are used in production, manufacturing, etc. One area where this could be deployed is in the oilsands, chemical and fertilizer production, etc.

In our business we are geothermal for heating & cooling, but we still make heavy use of propane for other needs. I'd venture a guess this is similar across Canada. (not saying nuclear replaces propane, but the applications are endless on a bigger scale).

Also, small scale reactors are probably going to be cheaper than $20 billion dollar hydro plants.

Yup - there's a LOT of off grid locations across the country that need heat and a lot of those use propane or diesel. Agriculture, construction, mining, industrial, camps, O&G, etc. Propane is cleaner that diesel, but still emits GHGs.

*used to work at Superior Propane

[#-3]

Originally Posted by zamler

If every car in Canada was electric could we realistically improve the grid to handle it? Elon Musk has said if every car was an EV the grid would have to double in capacity. Is that feasible?

Call me crazy but we should be producing oil as much as possible and using the revenue to become a world leader in clean energy. The amount of oil used globally will not change if Canada stops producing it, so why not leverage the resource?

I suspect doubling is slight exaggeration, we do need to double the grid, but not only for EVs. Owning 1 EV that we don't really use public stations to fill up I suspect that 2 EVs would represent ~60% of our pre-ev energy tab. And I believe industry vs truck freight would be a comparable number, if/when those areas start to convert

Probably where you get to double is looking at the electrification of heavy industries like metal making, that are still largely using coal and gas. those probably account for the other 40% when guys like Musk talk about the need to double our grid.

My opinion of expanding the grid has always been; easy problem, big effort. We know we can build the grid we have, because we have done it once. All we are asking is to do it a second time, lots of cost, lots of effort, but not really a giant engineering problem

Edit: I should say lots of upfront capital cost, that does have a return in investment.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Azure

We already have a plan to reduce emissions. Nuclear power. And in the short term until we have the plants up and running, we go crazy with natural gas.

Hell, I'd imagine if the government actually got serious about natural gas, we could reduce emissions quite a bit, and burn whatever is flared to mine bitcoin.

I golfed with a BSD at a medium size power producer in Alberta and asked him why they still allowed flaring. He said they do it because the province lets them. There is little to no reason they couldn't capture that stuff and make steam from it.

He also said you need to be around 5MW for the math to work and be close to a transmission line.

Random aside, anyone know what they flare at the sewage plant just off of Deerfoot Trail?

[Azure]

I would love to know more about flaring and why we can't use it for something else.

Seriously, mine bitcoin with it. We could be a world leader in that too!

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Azure

I would love to know more about flaring and why we can't use it for something else.

Seriously, mine bitcoin with it. We could be a world leader in that too!

Bitcoin mining provides zero benefit for society. I don't think we should be incentivizing those things. If we are going to capture flared gas, there must be better uses for it. The problem, I believe, is that when it does happen, it's likely because building pipelines doesn't make sense due to remoteness or sparse well density. That makes it also a challenge to put something on site that is economical. Maybe one day we will have small scale hydrogen production powered from flared gas. At least that produces a useful product, unlike bitcoin.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Torture

Maybe not just from EVs, but I think at least doubling the capacity of the grid is realistic. Whether it's EVs or other uses, one of the key strategies for achieving net zero is to "electrify everything" so yeah, we're going to need major investments in the grid.

If everybody tried to plug in and charge an electric car right now when they got home from work at ~5-6, while turning on their oven and starting to cook dinner, we'd overwhelm the grid easily.

Edit: Anywhere from 38-70% increase in capacity is needed according to Pembina institute


Oh and here's a good pod on grid needs in the future.
https://arcenergyinstitute.com/trans...energy-canada/

I'm sure you'd just use time of use rates for electricity. We have that in Ontario. People would charge their cars over night if it was cheaper than plugging it at 5pm.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

I'm sure you'd just use time of use rates for electricity. We have that in Ontario. People would charge their cars over night if it was cheaper than plugging it at 5pm.

That'll definitely be part of it but we're going to have to upgrade our meters for that.

[Table 5]

A $440 Billion nuclear build out by China is coming.

The world’s biggest emitter, China’s planning at least 150 new reactors in the next 15 years, more than the rest of the world has built in the past 35.

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/china-s-...dout-1.1675953

This will probably have considerably bigger environmental impact than pretty much anything said or promised at COP26 this week.

[Azure]

How can China do anything positive if they're not part of the old boys club? Come on!

[opendoor]

I mean, authoritarian countries with centrally run economies and cheap labor have pretty much always been more effective at building massive public work projects more cost effectively than western nations. The Three Gorges dam has about 20x the installed capacity of BC's Site C dam, but it only cost about 2.5x what Site C will cost.

As long as neoliberal policies dominate Western politics and as long we maintain health, labor, and safety standards, there's only so much we can emulate from China's methods. I'm all for crown corporations getting huge interest free loans to build zero emission generation (which is essentially what China is doing), but that's going to cost a lot of tax dollars.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

I golfed with a BSD at a medium size power producer in Alberta and asked him why they still allowed flaring. He said they do it because the province lets them. There is little to no reason they couldn't capture that stuff and make steam from it.

Originally Posted by Azure

I would love to know more about flaring and why we can't use it for something else.

There has been a huge reduction in flaring over the past 20 years. It still exists to some extent so it's not perfect, but it is certainly not the old days either where anything went.

https://www.capp.ca/explore/flaring-...20%28BCOGC%29.

[Torture]

$130T is an eye popping number, seems like big finance is in the game.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1455842084313784323

[accord1999]

Quebec's electricity export "pipelines" continue to run into the same problems that Alberta's oil pipelines have.

It involves a Hydro-Québec transmission line between Quebec and New England — and now its future is in doubt.

Voters in Maine voted about 60-40 to halt construction of the project and force its backers to obtain two-thirds support in the state legislature if they want to complete it.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/maine-...ebec-1.6233569