The Energy Transition and technologies

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Why would you do that though? You'd want to incentivize use of this and other non-carbon energy sources - unless you assume this is going to immediately be cheaper then other sources.

You'd still keep the carbon taxes in place to keep the pressure/incentives to shift behaviours.

To me the migration pathway looks like this:

1. Eliminate coal in favour of natural gas.
2. Continue to deploy geographically diverse renewables + storage.
3. SMRs + electrolyzers to produce hydrogen. Hydrogen is probably the best fuel to replace diesel for long haul trucking.
4. Fusion reactors.

It is important to understand that the energy transition won't end at the elimination of carbon. There will be an even greater push to remove hydroelectric dams to restore fish habitat. Landowners will push to have wind turbines decommissioned.

Basically any energy producing asset that has any environmental impact whatsoever would become a candidate for removal.

[Azure]

Well we are already screwing up when it comes to replacing coal with natural gas.

Also, not to sound like a Tesla fanboy, but given how practical the Tesla Semi looks, I would say everything we do, whether solar, wind or fusion reactors are all so that we have unlimited electric charging capacity.

From there it becomes an effort to improve batteries.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Azure

Well we are already screwing up when it comes to replacing coal with natural gas.

Who's 'we'?

Alberta will be off coal by the end of 2023.

[Azure]

Emissions are worldwide.

By 'we', I mean the planet.

Coal usage will hit a record high in 2023 due to some pretty boneheaded policies through the 'world.'

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

Just saw Neal Degrasse Tyson on fox business. He seemed really pumped, perhaps Mathgod should talk him down with a condescending contrarian phone call

Over the years I've seen countless examples of articles/Youtube videos/social media posts claiming some tremendous breakthrough or something amazing happening that will surely change the world for the better.... only to later find out it was mostly hype and heavily misrepresented the facts of what happened.

This wasn't one of those cases. It was the real thing this time. Ok. I get it. Sorry. Geez.

Hopefully you can understand why I come at these kinds of things with a great deal of initial skepticism. Especially when I google searched about it when I first saw it and, at the time, the story had not been picked up by any major news outlet.

There was no intent of condesension or anything like that.

[Fuzz]

http://ets.aeso.ca/ets_web/ip/Market...DReportServlet

Just curious, is there somewhere to see this data over time? At this time of year I like to check to see how things are going. I only looked in yesterday when wind was performing at the same dismal level, so I'm curious how many days it stretches on before providing some significant power. This will give us some idea of how many days of battery storage are needed if wind + battery is going to be any sort of base-load replacement or supplement.

[DoubleK]

Yes. From the AESO homepage, click Current Supply and Demand and the Historical on the left menu.

Pick your report and date range and hit ok.

Edit: I don't see that gen summary report there. You might have to use the API on the new data dashboard to get it.

[Azure]

Coal India is most likely to surpassing the ambitious 700 million tonne production target by March 2023, said chairman Pramod Agrawal on 1 January, 2023. He added that a 'price revision is essential' for the dry fuel to get the company compensated adequately.

Once the company meets the annual production target with over 12 per cent growth for the first time set by the government, it will be another feather in coal India's cap. In 2021-22, the production was 622.6 million tonne.

To meet India's growing energy demand, the Kolkata-headquartered company is extracting more coal, however, at the same time, it was 'taking several measures to reduce emissions to support the country's net zero target by 2070'.

https://www.livemint.com/news/india/...564911603.html

But hey, at least Canada has a carbon tax and we can CHANGE our behaviour.

Too bad it won't actually mean #### for the planet.

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by Azure

https://www.livemint.com/news/india/...564911603.html

But hey, at least Canada has a carbon tax and we can CHANGE our behaviour.

Too bad it won't actually mean #### for the planet.

Canada is the worlds 20 something college kid.

Man I hate my Dad USA. I’ll show him.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Azure

https://www.livemint.com/news/india/...564911603.html

But hey, at least Canada has a carbon tax and we can CHANGE our behaviour.

Too bad it won't actually mean #### for the planet.

This is more than a bit unfair. Canada's electricity consumption is flat and is only 11% higher than in 2000. We've got no need to increase our generation and India is growing at 13% per year and they're still nowhere near what we use per capita. They're the second fastest growing solar installing country behind China and are installing hydro and wind as well much faster than we are. Would you propose those Indians finally getting access to electricity just.... wait a decade?


We emitted all that CO2 to get to the lifestyle we now maintain and have installed lots of hydro over time as well to get to lower CO2 generation. We currently emit 8 times as much CO2 per person as they do, so I'm not sure this is fair at all. We absolutely can still try to have our house in order as we're seventh highest in the world per capita.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Azure

https://www.livemint.com/news/india/...564911603.html

But hey, at least Canada has a carbon tax and we can CHANGE our behaviour.

Too bad it won't actually mean #### for the planet.

So would you sign up for net zero by 2070 then?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

This is more than a bit unfair. Canada's electricity consumption is flat and is only 11% higher than in 2000. We've got no need to increase our generation and India is growing at 13% per year and they're still nowhere near what we use per capita. They're the second fastest growing solar installing country behind China and are installing hydro and wind as well much faster than we are. Would you propose those Indians finally getting access to electricity just.... wait a decade?


We emitted all that CO2 to get to the lifestyle we now maintain and have installed lots of hydro over time as well to get to lower CO2 generation. We currently emit 8 times as much CO2 per person as they do, so I'm not sure this is fair at all. We absolutely can still try to have our house in order as we're seventh highest in the world per capita.

Not sure I get your post.

I've long argued that we can't possibly expect countries like India to forgo using coal for energy production just because it isn't 'green.'

They are doing exactly what we did.

My problem is that we aren't helping them move to LNG faster considering LNG is a proven coal replacement.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by GGG

So would you sign up for net zero by 2070 then?

I don't think it really matters what anyone signs up for. India / China / developing world are going to increase carbon emissions the next 25 years.

Net zero is a term coined by ivory tower idiots who think fly to climate change meetings with their private jets while telling the world we need to change our behaviour or everyone will die.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Azure

Not sure I get your post.



I've long argued that we can't possibly expect countries like India to forgo using coal for energy production just because it isn't 'green.'



They are doing exactly what we did.



My problem is that we aren't helping them move to LNG faster considering LNG is a proven coal replacement.

I don't get the point of your original post. Were you trying to be funny or were you simply being ignorant?

India has a notoriously undersupplied and unreliable electricity system. It is extremely easy and cheap to convert a coal plant to gas fired steam. If it wasn't, Alberta wouldn't be off coal as quickly as it is.

No stable supply of electricity means no prospect of EVs.

.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Azure

I don't think it really matters what anyone signs up for. India / China / developing world are going to increase carbon emissions the next 25 years.

Net zero is a term coined by ivory tower idiots who think fly to climate change meetings with their private jets while telling the world we need to change our behaviour or everyone will die.

It does matter what people sign up for. Net zero 2070 still requires significant action today. At net zero 2070 I don’t see significant differences in Canadian policy as net zero 2050. You would still want to make the infrastructure and regulatory changes now to support the 2070 goal. (2070 is probably much more realistic than 2050 anyway).

Net zero is not a buzzword, it’s the actual measurable we need to be able to hit to limit and perhaps reverse the affects of global warming.

Finally if we don’t change our actions the carrying capacity of the world will be reduced. Will everyone die no, will the people least responsible for climate change be most affected by it’s out comes? Absolutely.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Azure

Not sure I get your post.

I've long argued that we can't possibly expect countries like India to forgo using coal for energy production just because it isn't 'green.'

They are doing exactly what we did.

My problem is that we aren't helping them move to LNG faster considering LNG is a proven coal replacement.

There's a couple problems with that.

1) LNG is very expensive. With India's infrastructure already built for coal to power, LNG would need to be many times cheaper than it has been so far

2) India's growth is such that there just isn't enough. The power demand for their developing economy is insatiable and LNG is too expensive to be anything but marginal right now. Having said that, their plan is to build out renewables much faster and skip the "transition" fuel.

There's certainly room for critique of their strategy, but to suggest Canada shouldn't get it's house in order because India is using more coal is still a poor argument

[Fuzz]

India — The government has approved $2.3 billion to support production, use and exports of green hydrogen, aiming to make India a global hub for the nascent industry...
...The aim of the funding initiative is “to make green hydrogen affordable and bring down its cost over the next five years. It will also help India reduce its emissions and become a major exporter in the field,” said Anurag Thakur, India’s minister for information and broadcasting.

https://time.com/6244782/india-2-bil...reen-hydrogen/

Is it just me, or is this really dumb? India gets most of its power from coal. By dedicating a bunch of renewable generation to "green" hydrogen, do you not just displace that from the grid, where those renewables would have replaced coal?

[DoubleK]

No, not dumb.

The theory behind it is to make renewables "dispatchable". Any excess renewable energy that isn't required to satisfy demand would be diverted to the electrolyzer to make green hydrogen which is stored until you need it to make electricity.

[Fuzz]

Would the money not be better spent on grid storage to reduce coal usage? And by better, I mean better for the environment.

[DoubleK]

Both batteries and hydrogen will reduce the amount of coal necessary. India may have other uses for hydrogen (as a feedstock or otherwise) that I'm not aware of.

The core issue is that it's not easy or cheap to store electricity in large quantities. The technology at the grid scale is really in its infancy. Any investment is good in my books.