The Energy Transition and technologies

[Mr.Coffee]

I don't think people truly appreciate the complexity of challenge that midstream companies have to develop inter-provincial projects (federal jurisdiction). Like, the costs to develop such projects, including the regulatory and other FN issues at play, it's just not happening. Other jurisdictions just don't have these issues. Companies are wise to develop projects elsewhere, spend their capital elsewhere, and incur such international risks- which are actually far less risky than the current domestic business model.

This country has screwed itself.

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by D as in David

Would the economics for the McKenzie gas pipeline work now? I believe that's why Imperial Oil pulled out of it before.

The economics from 2018 are on the upside for pricing. However they pulled the plug on that as a result of capital costs as well. Inflation isn’t going to help them there. They could be better off looking into tying into the south where they can get egress out West.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Leondros

I can add in the Pharmacist from Kamloops if you would like as well

All hyperbole aside, it is frustrating to see how the average Canadian constantly belittles these types of projects. We have seen everything from environmental concerns, First Nations concerns, municipal concerns and everything in-between hamper these projects. Now these are finally getting approved and we are trying to reduce their impact by making the "economics impact" argument? How about we stop shooting ourselves in the foot by hampering our ability to take advantage of our natural resources. We are one of the few countries who truly cannot get out of our own way and its become ingrained in our culture and the way Canadians in general behave. Because if we don't do this some other countries will where we cannot control the E, the S, or the G.

I have nothing against building the pipeline and I'm not belittling anything. My point is that the reason you're not seeing a pipeline and LNG being built is that it's not economically viable based on current trends and capital outlay. If you read from the beginning I'm not saying it's unethical or people involved are bad. It's simply that the economics aren't there for that type of risk.

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I have nothing against building the pipeline and I'm not belittling anything. My point is that the reason you're not seeing a pipeline and LNG being built is that it's not economically viable based on current trends and capital outlay. If you read from the beginning I'm not saying it's unethical or people involved are bad. It's simply that the economics aren't there for that type of risk.

Agreed, I never thought you were belittling anything. This discussion started for me at least when I was responding to your concerns with economics. To which I stated developing Asia and Africa are two key pillars that are often overlooked when it comes to fossil fuel demand. These countries are decades behind Europe and North America in terms of electrical grid and consumer energy demand. Fossil fuels will be a logical stepping stone for them for the better part of this century. That is where a lot of modeling sees the demand side making up for the reduction in consumption in first world countries. Especially the Asia side for Western Canada where we have a geographical competitive advantage.

Now, what we saw with the Blueberry Nation is setting some pretty expensive precedents. This is hammering the economics. However, if companies were given certainty around being able to complete these midstream projects a lot are still passing internal hurdle rates.

[timun]

Originally Posted by opendoor

It's really not an issue at all. Almost everywhere with any kind of real heating/cooling needs has a mismatch between heating and cooling loads. You just size the equipment for whichever is more appropriate; generally that's heating for heating-dominated climates and cooling for cooling-dominated climates.

You cannot have too much of a mismatch of size though. Manufacturers I've dealt with generally have a recommended size range. E.g., for Carrier's "Infinity" 24 SEER series:



Biggest acceptable discrepancy is 42,000 BTUh (3.5 tons) cooling vs. 60,000 BTUh heating.

Short cycling can be an issue, but it's more of a problem with modulating equipment.

Less of a problem with modulating equipment, you mean.

My main heat pump can output between 3K-26K BTUs in heating or cooling mode, so if the cooling needs are less than 3K, then it'll kick on and off pretty regularly which isn't great for units that are designed to run 24 hours a day. But by the time it gets warm enough inside to warrant turning it on, the cooling needs are at least that high.

Curious what you've got; I've never seen a unit with a 10:1 turndown. 4:1, sure.

Also curious what you've got because 26 MBH heating is pretty small... Certainly too small for an average house in Calgary.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by timun

You cannot have too much of a mismatch of size though. Manufacturers I've dealt with generally have a recommended size range. E.g., for Carrier's "Infinity" 24 SEER series:



Biggest acceptable discrepancy is 42,000 BTUh (3.5 tons) cooling vs. 60,000 BTUh heating.

Interesting. Everything around here (coastal BC) is just sized for the heating load and the cooling capacity usually ends up way oversized. But I've never heard of (or experienced) it being an issue. Other than when installers do a terrible job of designing the system (i.e. tons of mini split heads in bedrooms that are way oversized for the load), but those perform poorly in heating as well.

Less of a problem with modulating equipment, you mean.

No, I mean that modulating equipment is generally not designed to cycle on and off, so when that happens it can really hurt their efficiency. Often (with mini splits at least) they start their cycle out with the compressor at its max output (which is less efficient) before ramping down to suit the load. But if they're short cycling, they spend almost all of their time in that less efficient part of their cycle.

Whereas non-modulating equipment has to be able to turn on and off regularly without issue, otherwise it would be pretty useless at any temperature not near the design temperature. So the non-modulating heat pump in my last house would kick on and off like a normal furnace while hitting its rated COP. While my current ducted minisplits run 24/7 when they're on unless the indoor/outdoor temperature delta is less than 4-5 degrees. Short cycling on the latter would be much more harmful to its performance.

Curious what you've got; I've never seen a unit with a 10:1 turndown. 4:1, sure.

Also curious what you've got because 26 MBH heating is pretty small... Certainly too small for an average house in Calgary.

I have 2 Fujitsu ducted mini splits. One 18K nominal (but it puts out up to 25.8K) and a 12K nominal (that puts out up to ~20K in heating mode) for downstairs and upstairs respectively. They both modulate down to 3.1K at their lowest in both heating and cooling.

Together, they're oversized for both heating and cooling, so I usually just end up running the larger downstairs one during heating season unless the temperature gets down around freezing. And then I normally just run the upstairs one for cooling other than on really hot days. But I'm also in BC, so the temperatures are better suited to that kind of setup than Calgary.

[Azure]

Interesting that nobody is talking about the carbon emissions question.

We're at what, 0.03 per cent CO2 per tonne with the newest Canadian LNG projects? Can we go lower? And if we can, doesn't that then change the 'we must move away from fossil fuels' debate?

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Azure

Interesting that nobody is talking about the carbon emissions question.

We're at what, 0.03 per cent CO2 per tonne with the newest Canadian LNG projects? Can we go lower? And if we can, doesn't that then change the 'we must move away from fossil fuels' debate?

"Nobody is talking about it" because it's a question that was answered long ago. The target is zero carbon emissions. Therefore yes we must move away from fossil fuels as quickly as we feasibly can. But it won't happen overnight. Is there room for NG use during the transition? Absolutely.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

I am on record in this thread (and pretty much anywhere else) that it's criminal a line to Site C isn't in active development. The big generators in Alberta must have an incredibly powerful lobby with the provincial government.

Given how expensive Site C has become, I wonder if Alberta utilities/big users are waiting to see what pricing would be first. And on the BC side of it, with the cost you might want to try to sell to Americans first, ideally more to electricity-poor California.

[timun]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Interesting. Everything around here (coastal BC) is just sized for the heating load and the cooling capacity usually ends up way oversized. But I've never heard of (or experienced) it being an issue. <clipped for brevity>

Ha, okay, so... there are a few things you're saying that need to consider context.

First of all, Fujitsu is fibbing a little bit about the performance of your units. Not that they're lying, but they're not giving you the full picture. For example your nominal 18 MBH unit is capable of >25 MBH of heat output, max; that is true. However, it's only true within the context of the outdoor ambient temperature being so warm that you wouldn't need heat in the first place.

Here's the design manual for what is likely your heat pump, or at least pretty close to: https://connect.fujitsugeneral.com/3...9-5e04ed333de9

This is the heating capacity chart for the 18 MBH unit; see p. 12:



So, yeah, it can deliver a max 25+ MBH of heat, at warm temperatures outside. Functionally it's pointless. Any heat pump by its very nature will be capable of this, but I need more heat in my house when it's colder outside, not when it's warmer. They don't actually tell you the conditions under which that minimum 3.1 MBH of heating or cooling is possible.

You can see that below -10 °C (14 °F), performance drops off below the rated nominal capacity, until it craps out entirely at -20.6 °C/-5 °F. FYI, winter design temperature in Calgary is -33 °C/-27.4 °F. Summer design is only +28 °C/82.4 °F (dry bulb), which is not really all that hot in the first place.

So, in reality, for a climate like Calgary's this unit is only useful up to a point. All things being equal the heating and cooling capacities required are dictated simply by the ΔT between indoor and outdoor. Assuming an indoor of 21 °C, peak (design) cooling is nominally only a 7 °C ΔT whereas peak heating is 54 °C ΔT. The heat pump's cooling capacity will inherently tend to be much too large for Calgary's summer conditions, because it simply doesn't get all that hot in Calgary and gets that much colder.

Ultimately there's no point designing for the winter peak condition; it doesn't really matter because it's incapable of doing it anyway. Like I said, a great option is to simply assume a non-peak heating condition and deliberately 'undersize' the heating; you'll end up with a much smaller discrepancy in heating and cooling capacities and the unit will operate within the bounds of its "normal" operating temperature range. You'll have some secondary source of heat, sized for the peak heating condition, either way.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by accord1999

Given how expensive Site C has become, I wonder if Alberta utilities/big users are waiting to see what pricing would be first. And on the BC side of it, with the cost you might want to try to sell to Americans first, ideally more to electricity-poor California.

The forecast in BC Hydro's annual report is $50USD/MWh.

Also shows that BCH/Powerex had trading revenues of $1.9B on average price of $33/MWh and $25/MWh. Way cheaper than the 30 day average pool price in AB, $185/MWh.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I have nothing against building the pipeline and I'm not belittling anything. My point is that the reason you're not seeing a pipeline and LNG being built is that it's not economically viable based on current trends and capital outlay. If you read from the beginning I'm not saying it's unethical or people involved are bad. It's simply that the economics aren't there for that type of risk.

One thing that’s tough on econs is when it takes 18 years to build something.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Azure

Interesting that nobody is talking about the carbon emissions question.

We're at what, 0.03 per cent CO2 per tonne with the newest Canadian LNG projects? Can we go lower? And if we can, doesn't that then change the 'we must move away from fossil fuels' debate?

It's 0.03% upstream emissions, but it's still about 55-60% of the CO2 of coal, which is still a lot of CO2...

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

"Nobody is talking about it" because it's a question that was answered long ago. The target is zero carbon emissions. Therefore yes we must move away from fossil fuels as quickly as we feasibly can. But it won't happen overnight. Is there room for NG use during the transition? Absolutely.

And yet renewables will never equal zero emissions, as there are raw materials needed to produce solar panels, wind turbines, etc.

I know on a carbon emissions level it is less than lots other forms of energy, say burning coal for electricity, but always interesting to see the dogmatic stupidity that there is no possible way that natural gas can be produced with less emissions in 10 years than right now. And that includes downstream & upstream emissions.

Are natural gas plants not more efficient in 2023 than they were in 1985?

[Street Pharmacist]

I'm not sure of your point exactly, but the bulk of the emissions is and has always been the combustion of the end product and that makes it a no go in a net Zero future.

As for windmills and solar panels, there's ways to reduce carbon emissions by using green power to manufacture. If low or zero carbon cement can be figured out for windmills it's the same. CCUS on a gas plant likely makes it uneconomic in the future, but maybe that could be a use

[Torture]

Originally Posted by Azure

And yet renewables will never equal zero emissions, as there are raw materials needed to produce solar panels, wind turbines, etc.

What's your point? Fossil fuel infrastructure also uses raw materials. The point is to get to net zero, not absolute zero.

Originally Posted by Azure

I know on a carbon emissions level it is less than lots other forms of energy, say burning coal for electricity, but always interesting to see the dogmatic stupidity that there is no possible way that natural gas can be produced with less emissions in 10 years than right now. And that includes downstream & upstream emissions.

Are natural gas plants not more efficient in 2023 than they were in 1985?

I'm not sure why I'm biting here but it's possible to have legitimate concerns about expanding natural gas without it being 'dogmatic stupidity'. A couple legitimate concerns about natural gas:

1) Upstream methane emissions, which are now understood to be higher than previously reported
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature19797
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-87610-3
https://theconversation.com/the-us-n...-matters-98918

2) While LNG does help lower emissions today, the infrastructure has a lifespan of decades and locks in those emissions. (Or it would have to be decommissioned early and replaced with renewables, not likely) It's because of this reason that it's generally understood that significant LNG expansion will not help achieve a 1.5C or 2C warming level.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-022-01060-3
https://www.reuters.com/business/cop...rt-2022-11-10/

LNG can help in the near-term. There is significant coal-based generation remaining in the world today that could be substituted by natural gas. However, in a 1.5-degree or 2-degree compatible world — as is called for under the Paris agreement — all coal-based generation would be replaced by natural gas or renewables by 2030 or 2038, making the coal-to-gas transition argument moot.

To remain on a Paris-compliant pathway, the world would need to replace these natural gas plants with lower-emitting generation. This effectively creates an expiry date for the use of LNG as a climate solution.

In short, LNG expansion makes a below 3 C increase more likely and a 2 C or below increase less likely. Warming above 2 C will result in dramatically worse consequences for Alberta and the world.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...blem-1.6480377

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I have nothing against building the pipeline and I'm not belittling anything. My point is that the reason you're not seeing a pipeline and LNG being built is that it's not economically viable based on current trends and capital outlay. If you read from the beginning I'm not saying it's unethical or people involved are bad. It's simply that the economics aren't there for that type of risk.

I don't agree. The reason you don't see pipelines and LNG in Canada is because it's not politically viable.

The economics work from a pure supply and demand perspective. But then you consider the $5B community investment to first nations, the 1-2 year delay due to protests, the 2-5 year delay due to court cases where you'll win until you don't because of an activist judge.

Then it doesn't.

You could claim that those are all economic arguments as well that need to be considered, and I'm making a "if you take the economics out, then the economics work" argument. I'm just claiming from a pure supply and demand perspective, the economics work. You add on the protestors, legal delays, regulatory and political risk, and then it doesn't. This is why you see new pipelines and LNG everywhere else in the world, where those political risk factors are much lower, while the pure global supply and demand part of the equation is the same.

It wasn't that long ago that KXL was stopped because of a political decision, not an economic one.

[Sluggo]

Originally Posted by Regorium

It wasn't that long ago that KXL was stopped because of a political decision, not an economic one.

And Might I add a shadow 'Grass Roots' campaign with financial sources from Russia, Saudi, Qatar, and the Americans. It is quite well known that Canada is effectively 10 micro nations and you don't have to spend as much money to pit the Provinces and against each other and then you can double down and Pick away at a pipeline or export terminal by throwing money at local First Nations.

[Azure]

We all know Canada got played for a fool with KXL.

But I don't think its fair to say that First Nations are a problem we can't overcome. Aren't there examples of LNG or oil projects that have worked out with a First Nations partnership?

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Regorium

I don't agree. The reason you don't see pipelines and LNG in Canada is because it's not politically viable.

The economics work from a pure supply and demand perspective. But then you consider the $5B community investment to first nations, the 1-2 year delay due to protests, the 2-5 year delay due to court cases where you'll win until you don't because of an activist judge.

Then it doesn't.

You could claim that those are all economic arguments as well that need to be considered, and I'm making a "if you take the economics out, then the economics work" argument. I'm just claiming from a pure supply and demand perspective, the economics work. You add on the protestors, legal delays, regulatory and political risk, and then it doesn't. This is why you see new pipelines and LNG everywhere else in the world, where those political risk factors are much lower, while the pure global supply and demand part of the equation is the same.

It wasn't that long ago that KXL was stopped because of a political decision, not an economic one.

I think we're speaking the same language and I'm just saying if there was a big LNG windfall to capitalize on, someone would still throw some funds at it. Because of what you've mentioned and most importantly, the timeline that those economics would work in, it simply isn't a bet anyone wants to make