The Energy Transition and technologies

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

I am not very knowledgeable about this topic, but this seemed kind of cool and hopeful to me. The small-scale modular approach and opportunity to make the tech more accessible to developing/emerging markets seems like an appealing vision of making clean energy tech more prevalent in contexts where it might not otherwise make sense. Hopefully the testing period works out well and it becomes viable to scale.





https://www.msn.com/en-xl/news/other...rs/ar-AA1cAlBp

I've been thinking we should be doing something like this up North. Nuclear energy and basically free/inexpensive energy for people in Yukon, NWT and Nunavut by running it regularly. Parallel it to what's going on in the Fort Mac area and use the excess for extraction/refining. If something happens, it's out there away from the large populations.

I've wanted the same for geothermal as well, but IIRC, the issue is the transmission of the power to where it can be used. The cost for that is too high.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by DoubleF

I've been thinking we should be doing something like this up North. Nuclear energy and basically free/inexpensive energy for people in Yukon, NWT and Nunavut by running it regularly. Parallel it to what's going on in the Fort Mac area and use the excess for extraction/refining. If something happens, it's out there away from the large populations.

I've wanted the same for geothermal as well, but IIRC, the issue is the transmission of the power to where it can be used. The cost for that is too high.

The thing with the north is most communities are small and spread out. They don't even need anywhere near what an SMR does, unless there is an industrial reason. You aren't linking them with transmission lines, either. So there aren't all that many communities that would make the cost worth it.

I think a lot of them would benefit from basic solar to cut way back on diesel use(generators) in the summer months. Beyond that, a lot of it is pretty small gains for the expense.

I've looked into geothermal in the north, there aren't a lot of good opportunities. Most wells are deep with a mediocre thermal gradient and bottom hole temperatures.

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

The thing with the north is most communities are small and spread out. They don't even need anywhere near what an SMR does, unless there is an industrial reason. You aren't linking them with transmission lines, either. So there aren't all that many communities that would make the cost worth it.

I think a lot of them would benefit from basic solar to cut way back on diesel use(generators) in the summer months. Beyond that, a lot of it is pretty small gains for the expense.


I've looked into geothermal in the north, there aren't a lot of good opportunities. Most wells are deep with a mediocre thermal gradient and bottom hole temperatures.

Yep agreed. In it's own funny way, these are the communities that need the energy storage. Transport batteries back and forth between the production method and the communities.

and helping them solar for those North communities seem like a reasonable plan for summer months, no? They have like 22-23 hours of daylight a day.

[Fuzz]

I really don't think that would be practical, diesel is still far easier and cheaper. But there are communities in the north already with solar, and more are being setup.

[Street Pharmacist]

I think there's going to be edge cases like the far north that will have to use some fossil fuels. It would be great to minimize it in the summer months with solar and batteries, with diesel in the winter

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I think there's going to be edge cases like the far north that will have to use some fossil fuels. It would be great to minimize it in the summer months with solar and batteries, with diesel in the winter

This is already the case, the remote communities use very little power in the summer as there is not much need for A/C.

[Azure]

Why can't Canada expand hydro capacity?

[Fuzz]

It has it's own environmental concerns and can be expensive.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Azure

Why can't Canada expand hydro capacity?

We could - but its not always simple.

Newfoundland is a prime example - they have been getting hosed by Quebec taking profits from power generated in Labrador at Churchill falls forever. And then they built another station at Muskrat falls that was a debacle and cost double what was expected.

A lot of the locations where hydro can be best generated are remote as well - so that adds complexity with transmission to the places where the power is used and also indigenous lands.

I still contend that a cross-provincial/federal power plan is the way to go (and include the US with it). You've got a giant country/continent and odds are somewhere in the country is going to have an excess of generation at almost all times. If you take away restrictions then you have to worry less about - Manitoba solar generation decilines wildly in January or whatever local generation issues are.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

We could - but its not always simple.

Newfoundland is a prime example - they have been getting hosed by Quebec taking profits from power generated in Labrador at Churchill falls forever. And then they built another station at Muskrat falls that was a debacle and cost double what was expected.

A lot of the locations where hydro can be best generated are remote as well - so that adds complexity with transmission to the places where the power is used and also indigenous lands.

I still contend that a cross-provincial/federal power plan is the way to go (and include the US with it). You've got a giant country/continent and odds are somewhere in the country is going to have an excess of generation at almost all times. If you take away restrictions then you have to worry less about - Manitoba solar generation decilines wildly in January or whatever local generation issues are.

We're not really a nation that comes together for our own benefit and causes though so there would opposition to any sort of national electricity sharing scheme. We haven't been able to establish oil movements and we won't succeed at electricity. Quebec is much more interested in selling their clean hydro electricity to the US NE than to Ontario and BC to the Pacific NW.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

We're not really a nation that comes together for our own benefit and causes though so there would opposition to any sort of national electricity sharing scheme. We haven't been able to establish oil movements and we won't succeed at electricity. Quebec is much more interested in selling their clean hydro electricity to the US NE than to Ontario and BC to the Pacific NW.

I'm not sure that it's so much political for BC as it is economic. The infrastructure is already in place and prices make selling to the PNW (and California) very profitable. BC Hydro's mandate is to keep electricity affordable for people in BC and pay off that is maximizing sales of excess electricity

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I'm not sure that it's so much political for BC as it is economic. The infrastructure is already in place and prices make selling to the PNW (and California) very profitable. BC Hydro's mandate is to keep electricity affordable for people in BC and pay off that is maximizing sales of excess electricity

Right, the provinces/utilities are driven by factors outside of national interests which is why we'll never see a unified national strategy for electricity generation and distribution. It would be akin to the NEP and the exporters like BC and Quebec, maybe Ontario, won't be onboard. Maybe the prairies can form a better union and establish some stable electricity sharing policies, I think there was already work towards this in terms of nuclear, but a national policy will never exist.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Right, the provinces/utilities are driven by factors outside of national interests which is why we'll never see a unified national strategy for electricity generation and distribution. It would be akin to the NEP and the exporters like BC and Quebec, maybe Ontario, won't be onboard. Maybe the prairies can form a better union and establish some stable electricity sharing policies, I think there was already work towards this in terms of nuclear, but a national policy will never exist.

I think if it was sold as part of a national green initiative with concrete CO2 reduction projections we could sway some people. The bigger pushback would definitely be from the prairies because Federal control of provincial electricity would be akin to communism to the right.

Unless the conservatives were in power, but they have very little interest in emission reduction anyways

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

We're not really a nation that comes together for our own benefit and causes though so there would opposition to any sort of national electricity sharing scheme. We haven't been able to establish oil movements and we won't succeed at electricity. Quebec is much more interested in selling their clean hydro electricity to the US NE than to Ontario and BC to the Pacific NW.

I mean, it's not a charity. BC Hydro isn't a huge net exporter of power, they just use the advantages of hydro to export when prices and/or demand are high and import when prices are low. So the whole thing relies on similar amounts of power coming back into the province.

So if Alberta heavily invested in solar, wind, and nuclear, then it might make sense because BC could import power when those are producing at a high level and export when they're not. But if Alberta's electricity is going to continue to be largely generated by gas and coal, what's the point in investing the huge capital costs for transmission when it'll have no real positive impact for anyone?

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by opendoor

I mean, it's not a charity. BC Hydro isn't a huge net exporter of power, they just use the advantages of hydro to export when prices and/or demand are high and import when prices are low. So the whole thing relies on similar amounts of power coming back into the province.

So if Alberta heavily invested in solar, wind, and nuclear, then it might make sense because BC could import power when those are producing at a high level and export when they're not. But if Alberta's electricity is going to continue to be largely generated by gas and coal, what's the point in investing the huge capital costs for transmission when it'll have no real positive impact for anyone?

On that note, with potential multiple Gigawatts of solar coming on board due to attractive PPAs (over 1GW already announced), negative electricity prices would be a great incentive for both sides to invest in improving the intertie. It's perfect for Hydro

[Street Pharmacist]

Texas is about to beat its record for peak demand and several gas and coal plants are down.

Despite all that they're not expecting any issues and prices are expected to remain low due to high penetration of wind and solar.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1673327071328718855

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I'm not sure that it's so much political for BC as it is economic. The infrastructure is already in place and prices make selling to the PNW (and California) very profitable. BC Hydro's mandate is to keep electricity affordable for people in BC and pay off that is maximizing sales of excess electricity

One has to keep in mind that the dams on the Columbia River are primarily for flood control, not power generation and are subject to an international treaty.

Only the Mica Dam was designed and constructed with a powerhouse.

The Duncan Dam doesn't have any power generation facilities, so conceivably could provide for some additional generation, but believe it's not the best resource around.

[cal_guy]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

This is already the case, the remote communities use very little power in the summer as there is not much need for A/C.

NWT/Yukon/Nunavut produced 53.7GWH, 35.2GWH, and 13.8GWH respectively in July while producing 70.3GWH, 62.8GWH, and 18.6GWH in January. So while the Territories are certainly winter-peaking there's still quite a bit of demand in summer.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by cal_guy

NWT/Yukon/Nunavut produced 53.7GWH, 35.2GWH, and 13.8GWH respectively in July while producing 70.3GWH, 62.8GWH, and 18.6GWH in January. So while the Territories are certainly winter-peaking there's still quite a bit of demand in summer.

That's gross. Back out industrial load and you paint a very different picture.

SP was going after residential demand.

[JohnnyB]

This is pretty awesome.

Toyota claims battery breakthrough in potential boost for electric cars

Japanese firm believes it could make a solid-state battery with a range of 745 miles that charges in 10 minutes

Toyota says it has made a technological breakthrough that will allow it to halve the weight, size and cost of batteries, in what could herald a major advance for electric vehicles.

The world’s second largest carmaker was already pursuing a plan to roll out cars with advanced solid-state batteries, which offer benefits compared with liquid-based batteries, by 2025.

On Tuesday, the Japanese company said it had simplified production of the material used to make them, hailing the discovery as a significant leap forward that could dramatically cut charging times and increase driving range.

“For both our liquid and our solid-state batteries, we are aiming to drastically change the situation where current batteries are too big, heavy and expensive,” said Keiji Kaita, president of the Japanese auto firm’s research and development centre for carbon neutrality. “In terms of potential, we will aim to halve all of these factors.”

Kaita said the company had developed ways to make batteries more durable and believed it could now make a solid-state battery with a range of 1,200km (745 miles) that could charge in 10 minutes or less.

The company expects to be able to manufacture solid-state batteries for use in electric vehicles as soon as 2027, according to the Financial Times, which first reported on Toyota’s claimed breakthrough.

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