The Energy Transition and technologies

[Azure]

Are you sure about the hydro numbers? Manitoba Hydro claims that its hydro is more carbon neutral than any solar that can be put up in Manitoba, and perhaps across Canada.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

It's criminal Alberta has not started the process of building a line to Site C. That project is a 2025 ISD. An HVDC link is about 10 years development start to finish. That line would be about 600 km and cost $3.5B for 2,000MW.

Absolutely. We need to stop thinking of the grid in terms of provincial silos.
Unfortunately, neither BC nor Alberta are even considering it. Seems there were talks under the NDP but nowadays that seems to dead.

Here's a pod where Markham Hislop talks to one of the BC Hydro folks about Site C and they're like "nope, intertie with AB is not even on the radar for either province."

https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts...d-_-ka5NptAor/

[Azure]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1456048962012471301

[GreenLantern2814]

$131 trillion is 3.33x the amount of currency currently (sorry) in circulation worldwide, and they said with a straight face they were going to commit that amount to one problem.

Who believes that.

[Julio]

Originally Posted by Torture

Absolutely. We need to stop thinking of the grid in terms of provincial silos.
Unfortunately, neither BC nor Alberta are even considering it. Seems there were talks under the NDP but nowadays that seems to dead.

Here's a pod where Markham Hislop talks to one of the BC Hydro folks about Site C and they're like "nope, intertie with AB is not even on the radar for either province."

https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts...d-_-ka5NptAor/

This is in contrast to what Manitoba and Saskatchewan are doing, with SaskPower buying Manitoba Hydro production to ensure they are ok when they start mothballing coal plants. (Saskatchewan is also ramping up wind/solar, as well as natural gas.)
https://www.saskpower.com/about-us/m...manitoba-hydro

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

The story I've read is that they've said that Quebec hydro power isn't very green because it results in flooding that kills trees. And those trees release their carbon when they die.

It sounds like nonsense to me, but that's part of the opposition story behind getting people to reject the transmission lines.

That’s true about new hydro to some degree. There is a negative CO2 affect from the flooding. Scale though needs to be looked at closely as when you compare lifecycle emissions it’s still very green.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

The story I've read is that they've said that Quebec hydro power isn't very green because it results in flooding that kills trees. And those trees release their carbon when they die.

It sounds like nonsense to me, but that's part of the opposition story behind getting people to reject the transmission lines.

I had previously read that another downfall of hydro is that it can ruin river ecosystem downstream. Basically the study was claiming that the water being returned from hydro plants was warmer, to a pretty small degree, but it was enough to impact fish and aquatic plants.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

$131 trillion is 3.33x the amount of currency currently (sorry) in circulation worldwide, and they said with a straight face they were going to commit that amount to one problem.

Who believes that.

131 trillion by 2050.

Oil is currently $80 per barrels barrel, roughly 100 million barrels per day are being produced. That’s 8 billion per day or 3 trillion per year or about 84 trillion by 2050. So 131 trillion doesn’t seem all that bad relative to current energy expenditures.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Julio

This is in contrast to what Manitoba and Saskatchewan are doing, with SaskPower buying Manitoba Hydro production to ensure they are ok when they start mothballing coal plants. (Saskatchewan is also ramping up wind/solar, as well as natural gas.)

https://www.saskpower.com/about-us/m...manitoba-hydro

That's little more than a token gesture.

215MW is a pittance compared to what Manitoba sends to the US.

I'm talking about several 1,000 MW links that are needed.

[SeeGeeWhy]

Originally Posted by Julio

This is in contrast to what Manitoba and Saskatchewan are doing, with SaskPower buying Manitoba Hydro production to ensure they are ok when they start mothballing coal plants. (Saskatchewan is also ramping up wind/solar, as well as natural gas.)
https://www.saskpower.com/about-us/m...manitoba-hydro

Aye. SK’s northern grid is supplied almost exclusively by Manitoba hydro exports, so their tunnel jet uranium mining and refining is basically carbon free.

Saskatchewan has also raised their hand to be the first wave of small modular reactor roll out after the darlington commercial demonstration plant is built. They’re a great fit to spot on retiring coal sites and remote mines or projects requiring big thermal loads.

Alberta has said we are open to maybe possibly considering them sometime in the 2040s after others have done what it takes to make it work. We are such a province of chickenbleeps.

[puckhog]

Originally Posted by GGG

131 trillion by 2050.

Oil is currently $80 per barrels barrel, roughly 100 million barrels per day are being produced. That’s 8 billion per day or 3 trillion per year or about 84 trillion by 2050. So 131 trillion doesn’t seem all that bad relative to current energy expenditures.

That’s not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison, though. What you’re talking about is the payment on consumption, the 131 trillion is the upstream investment side. If this investment program goes ahead, consumers and taxpayers (in some combination) will pay back substantially more than the 131 trillion, otherwise that investment will not be made.

[GreenLantern2814]

Germany and Austria are fighting to prevent nuclear being included among green energy sources.

How can you spend $131 trillion to fight climate change and $0 on the actual solution to keeping the lights on?

It’s genuinely offensive.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Germany and Austria are fighting to prevent nuclear being included among green energy sources.

How can you spend $131 trillion to fight climate change and $0 on the actual solution to keeping the lights on?

It’s genuinely offensive.

The 131 trillion is to keep the lights on

https://www.irena.org/publications/2...itions-Outlook

I believe the above report is where the number comes from. It’s the investment required to go from today to Carbon Neutral.

[Fuzz]

That report seems clueless...no mention of nuclear, barely a blip about storage which is an unsolved requirement for expansion of renawables, and a massive increase in "biofuels" which require massive amounts of land and petroleum inputs. The reason these plans fail is because they don't function in the real world.

[Azure]

I'm of the opinion they don't want them to work in the real world, and these 'plans' are being lobbied for in the background by people that are trying to transition massive amounts of taxpayer funds into their coffers again.

[Fuzz]

They do show the massive scale of how difficult it is. I didn't realize there were chapters after the summary, I've been looking through. Chapter 3 shows graphs with yearly spending indicated, over what we spend now. The increases are staggering. For instance, solar needs to go from yearly spending of 115 to 237 billion a year for 30 years. So you can spend all that, but where do you put them? At some point you run out of places to build massive solar farms.

Same with wind Offshore spending needs to increase 10 fold, every year. Surely opportunity for offshore wind locations will be exhausted long before 30 years at a pace of 10x what we do now. Storage needs to increase 33x. Biofuel production by 43x. Sorry, but where are you growing these? Remember, that's per year additions for 30 years.

I'd be interested to see these numbers re-worked with the massive increase in nuclear. Nothing in this report feels achievable due to limits on space and reality. The dollar value is the most realistic part of it.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

That report seems clueless...no mention of nuclear, barely a blip about storage which is an unsolved requirement for expansion of renawables, and a massive increase in "biofuels" which require massive amounts of land and petroleum inputs. The reason these plans fail is because they don't function in the real world.

I agree with the nuclear part, but what I think the value is in these reports is they define the scale of the problem. It starts to look at how much needs to be installed each year. These types of things can then be benchmarked against to show how badly we are failing.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by GGG

I agree with the nuclear part, but what I think the value is in these reports is they define the scale of the problem. It starts to look at how much needs to be installed each year. These types of things can then be benchmarked against to show how badly we are failing.

Yes, how bad we are failing, but they also need to show what this means, as I pointed out, and the reality that it isn't achievable on this planet without major advances. That tells me we should be massively investing in R&D, because we don't currently possess the solutions.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

They do show the massive scale of how difficult it is. I didn't realize there were chapters after the summary, I've been looking through. Chapter 3 shows graphs with yearly spending indicated, over what we spend now. The increases are staggering. For instance, solar needs to go form yearly spending of 115 to 237 billion a year for 30 years. So you can spend all that, but where do you put them? At some point you run out of places to build massive solar farms.

Same with wind Offshore spending needs to increase 10 fold, every year. Surely opportunity for offshore wind locations will be exhausted long before 30 years at a pace of 10x what we do now. Storage needs to increase 33x. Biofuel production by 43x. Sorry, but where are you growing these? Remember, that's per year additions for 30 years.

I'd be interested to see these numbers re-worked with the massive increase in nuclear. Nothing in this report feels achievable due to limits on space and reality. The dollar value is the most realistic part of it.

Indeed. One source I found said 4% of the crop land is used for biofuel. Using 172% of our arable land for fuel doesn't seem sustainable to me.

At least solar the land can be low quality/desert. Productivity per acre will probably go up over time (bifacial panels, other tech improvements) as well.

But it does seem like nuclear (and improvements to nuclear) will need to be part of the solution here. It seems especially suited to co-gen applications.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0303133614.htm

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

But it does seem like nuclear (and improvements to nuclear) will need to be part of the solution here. It seems especially suited to co-gen applications.



https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0303133614.htm

The solution has to include nuclear. There aren't many rivers left to dam, and energy storage isn't there yet to smooth out the intermittency of Wind and Solar.

The beauty of nukes is you can plop them down where all of the coal generators are sited. All of the required infrastructure is already there and you avoid the issue of stranded assets.