The Energy Transition and technologies

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

And if you are going to build massive amounts, why SMR's?


Like, if we need to replace baseload in Alberta, an SMR is not gonna do it.

My hope was that the technology could be built upon. I was most excited about SMRs powering things like oil extraction, thus drastically reducing their scope 1 and 2 emissions giving us Canadians a competitive advantage for cleaner fossil fuel production.

[Fuzz]

Ya, an SMR makes sense for that kind of thing. But when you start talking about replacing baseload, you really need much more scale.

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Ya, an SMR makes sense for that kind of thing. But when you start talking about replacing baseload, you really need much more scale.

Ya fair, I did have some discussions with some people at TransAlta who said if the technology got there you could have SMRs placed strategically on the grid to provide redundancies for baseload in the event solar/hydro/wind were not cutting it. By having them placed where you need them, they would be more efficient than having one large consolidated plant. Again, I am no engineer but it sounded interesting.

[Fuzz]

My thought on it is most of our consumption is in large focused locations, so for those locations an SMR is too small. There may be a few communities it might make sense for in Alberta, I just can't think of any...

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Leondros

Ya fair, I did have some discussions with some people at TransAlta who said if the technology got there you could have SMRs placed strategically on the grid to provide redundancies for baseload in the event solar/hydro/wind were not cutting it. By having them placed where you need them, they would be more efficient than having one large consolidated plant. Again, I am no engineer but it sounded interesting.

TA was sniffing around SMRs to put at Sundance. Brownfield site with ample transmission capacity.

Sucks that these are going to be delayed. OPG is still looking to put one at Darlington AFAIK.

[Street Pharmacist]

Nm

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

SMR in the US takes a pretty big hit. NuScale is probably the most promising new nuclear company and the Utah plant was expected to be their big showing. Recent expected target price raised to $89/MWh probably didn't help



https://www.reuters.com/business/ene...ct-2023-11-08/

This is really pissing me off. NuScale got a crap load of money from the government and all that got taxpayers is two fistfuls of nothing.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

This is really pissing me off. NuScale got a crap load of money from the government and all that got taxpayers is two fistfuls of nothing.

You weren't an American taxpayer yet so you're all good. But seriously, this is a pretty big blow. Solar made it after lots of subsidized companies failed (hello Solyndra) but these were some absolutely massive investments that have fizzled. If nuclear is going to fill the gap that's open, it's going to need a very big cost fix

[Fuzz]

https://www.international-constructi...026100.article


Good summary of all the SMR's being designed. I hadn't realized there were so many.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Ya, an SMR makes sense for that kind of thing. But when you start talking about replacing baseload, you really need much more scale.

SMRs are being designed to be modular and run in series to address concerns such as baseload and replacement of baseload plants. This allows for true scalability that is not possible in previous designs.

[Fuzz]

Sure, but if you are just building 5 SMR's it's not really small anymore.

[Street Pharmacist]

Substantial commitments from China coming out of the Biden-Xi meetings. Originally China committed to peaking electricity generation emissions by 2030. Now they're expecting significant reductions in emissions in the 2020's

6. Both countries support the G20 Leaders Declaration to pursue efforts to triple renewable energy capacity globally by 2030 and intend to sufficiently accelerate renewable energy deployment in their respective economies through 2030 from 2020 levels so as to accelerate the substitution for coal, oil and gas generation, and thereby anticipate post-peaking meaningful absolute power sector emission reduction, in this critical decade of the 2020s.

Sure you can say it's just words, but China doesn't say these things and then get embarrassed when they fall short. This is the first time China has said they expect to have a drop in electricity generation emissions this decade. It matches closely what other analysts are suggesting is happening on the ground

[Mathgod]

Excellent column in the Globe & Mail, a must read.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...in-geothermal/

Carbon emissions from burning coal, oil and natural gas are propelling a stunning rise in global temperature: The four months through September were 0.44 C warmer than the same months just eight years ago, at the start of the last major El Niño cycle. In 2024, we’re likely to cross the critical 1.5 C ceiling – a level of warming that scientists say will entail catastrophic consequences – and stay close to or above that threshold thereafter.

The global transition from fossil fuels to zero-carbon energy will require a massive increase in electricity production from renewable sources. Wind and solar power will be essential contributors. Yet weather-related blackouts, challenges in financing offshore wind in Europe, and Alberta’s moratorium on new renewable projects show that relying largely on wind and solar is risky. The world needs additional sources of green electricity to meet skyrocketing demand.

This is why a worldwide race for next-generation geothermal technology has begun – and why Canada needs to get serious about joining, lest it fall to the back of the alternative-energy pack.

Geothermal power taps thermal energy radiating from the Earth’s interior to the surface, conducted through subsurface rocks and fluids. We can access this heat by drilling into hot rock and channelling heat-bearing water back to the surface through a production well to generate electricity. Today, we can do this only where natural reservoirs of hot water lie close to the surface – generally less than five kilometres deep – but the true prize lies eight to 15 kilometres down in hard rock with supercritical temperatures, where there’s enough energy to potentially meet the world’s future electrical needs thousands of times over.

[Street Pharmacist]

Probably the wrong thread for this, but what happens to domestic gas prices once LNG starts flowing in Earnest? Are the volumes too low to impact domestic prices, or well the era of super cheap gas be behind us?

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Probably the wrong thread for this, but what happens to domestic gas prices once LNG starts flowing in Earnest? Are the volumes too low to impact domestic prices, or well the era of super cheap gas be behind us?

It really depends how much of the total natural gas production of the country has economic access to the global markets. There will continue to be a portion that is stranded to domestic markets that will likely be cheaper but the product that can be marketed globally should be benchmarked to tidewater prices resulting in higher natural gas prices for Canadian consumers.

[Fuzz]

I would have thought there is enough supply that can come online from the Montney that it wouldn't have much effect.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Leondros

It really depends how much of the total natural gas production of the country has economic access to the global markets. There will continue to be a portion that is stranded to domestic markets that will likely be cheaper but the product that can be marketed globally should be benchmarked to tidewater prices resulting in higher natural gas prices for Canadian consumers.

The ROI on things like heat pumps and hybrid hot water tanks will rely heavily on scaling manufacturing to lower costs, but also on gas prices. I wonder where that equation tips and if the opening of domestic gas supply to the global LNG market will get us there. I'm skeptical the price will change that much unless LNG really grows here

[edslunch]

As an aside, if Transmountain moves the needle on the WCS discount (I’m skeptical) what would that do to fuel prices here?

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by edslunch

As an aside, if Transmountain moves the needle on the WCS discount (I’m skeptical) what would that do to fuel prices here?

Would pricing still be set by AECO? That's the only thing I can think of.

Would tolls change at all due to less demand?

[Whynotnow]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Would pricing still be set by AECO? That's the only thing I can think of.

Would tolls change at all due to less demand?

AECO is natural gas trading hub. The differential will be set by the value of heavy barrels in the gulf coast and if TMX pulls barrels that way then it could narrow it, should narrow it. What impact that has in refined products is really hard to say.

As for pipeline tolls they are note adjusted due to pricing, TMX and keystone are almost all contract barrels for a long term. The TMX toll is still being set due to the capex cost issues. The Enbridge mainline just agreed to a new toll for that system, it did drop due to the competition out there, but it won’t fluctuate due to pricing.