Official (Alberta) Oil Discussion Thread

[nik-]

the real Old Dutch

[ranchlandsselling]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Ask any German if they regret going to renewables and the only people you'd find complaining are shareholders in the large utilities who bet on coal and have seen 80% of their market cap wiped out.

I'd be curious where your investment dollars are and if you've got any shareholder bias.

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by Rhettzky

I find them really efficient for grinding grain and pumping water.

And mini golf courses, look so fun yet so frustrating to get through!

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Are you saying nuclear energy is cheaper than renewable energy? That statement is not based in any reasonable assessment of the facts on the ground.

No. But I want it to be. Nuclear is the energy technology that I am rooting for most to have a breakthrough which lowers costs and increases EROI. The reason is that uranium is so dense that it gives us a hope of maintaining our standard of living as well as bringing third worlds out of poverty.

Splitting hairs about nuclear versus renewables is a navel gazing exercise or a method to sow confusion and delay.

If you think debating the difference between nuclear and renewables is merely splitting hairs then you have a much lower understanding of energy, energy technology and energy economics than I was giving you credit for (I was giving you credit for a lot, even if it is masked with a bias).

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

If you think debating the difference between nuclear and renewables is merely splitting hairs then you have a much lower understanding of energy, energy technology and energy economics than I was giving you credit for (I was giving you credit for a lot, even if it is masked with a bias).

Ouch. Think we have a ten pager here, jayswin.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

No. But I want it to be. Nuclear is the energy technology that I am rooting for most to have a breakthrough which lowers costs and increases EROI. The reason is that uranium is so dense that it gives us a hope of maintaining our standard of living as well as bringing third worlds out of poverty.

If you think debating the difference between nuclear and renewables is merely splitting hairs then you have a much lower understanding of energy, energy technology and energy economics than I was giving you credit for (I was giving you credit for a lot, even if it is masked with a bias).

My comments on nuclear vs renewables were based on the tone of debate that we were making mistakes developing renewables at a rapid pace and instead should have done something else. To that regard, if your objective function is reducing GHG emissions, then developing either is good so long as they can fit into a long-term low carbon pathway. The splitting hairs comment is that unless you demonstrate that renewables have some limit and that pursuing them is counter-productive to your objective then complaining about building one vs. the other is splitting hairs.

There's a real debate about the applicability of nuclear vs. renewables but we're not at that threshold. Both can be scaled significantly from current levels without regrets. Saying that we're making mistakes now is sowing a sense that our policy to boost renewables is counterproductive which is clearly not true.

http://deepdecarbonization.org/wp-co...ryMaterial.pdf

Is one of the most comprehensive and recent low-carbon scenarios path. They conclude that nuclear could be an important option but it isn't a technically necessary option.

Your argument that low carbon is not possible without nuclear as the primary source of generation should be tested. Show me with low carbon scenario pathways where anyone is saying that.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

Last time I looked at wind power was in 1999 on the eve of deregulation. We went so far as purchasing land in Ft Mcleod, got a space allocation from Transalta to a local transformer, and engineered the site for a 10 MW wind farm. We ran an anemometer for 3 years gathering wind data that we could present to the bank for a loan (around 10 million at the time).

At the end of the 3 years we overlaid all the data (wind speed and duration) on the spot price of power to check the economics. It made sense, but barely. I believe the price had to be $0.08/kWh to be viable. No bank would touch us to go ahead with the development.

We ended up selling the data to a private company who spun it off to Enmax who had a project nearby, and also sold our "spot" in line on the transmission end. We also sold the land at about a 200% profit to the hutterites for a cattle farm, so that was nice.

Looking at the spot price these days and taking into account inflation on the manufacturing end for the turbines, I have a real tough time believing it's anywhere near viable let alone profitable. I would have to see the actual numbers, but without heavy subsidies I don't see private industries touching it.

Another factor to consider is the location. You can't just stick a wind tower wherever it's windy; you need the distribution infrastructure to service it. Last I checked (admittedly 10 years ago) the windiest spots in Alberta (Pincher Creek to Lethbridge) we using up all the available capacity. There are viable sites, but no way to get it to the grid and on the market.

So that all begs the question: Who pays for all this? I love renewables, but it's a tough sell economically to private business or to the average joe who doesn't want to see tax increases (especially now) to subsidize the generation and transfer of renewable energy.

This is the most recent broad-based assessment of specific generating technology costs:

https://www.iea.org/Textbase/npsum/ElecCost2015SUM.pdf

Finally, this report clearly demonstrates that the cost of renewable technologies – in particular solar photovoltaic – have declined significantly over the past five years, and that these technologiesare no longer cost outliers.

Take a look at the wind numbers. If you believe the findings then wind looks to be right in line with competing generation technologies. Of course, this is an aggregate across many countries and the specific costs are, as you say, reliant on the local geography and wind resource.

However, it doesn't really stand to pass that wind is such a cost-outlier as you paint.

The point to really debate in that analysis is how accurate are the nuclear numbers? It seems incredibly cheap, but then you look at real world construction costs happening right now and something doesn't square.

Hinkley point in the UK is delayed again. EDF is effectively insolvent from the Flammanville nuclear plant it's trying to build. The only nuclear that looks to be in that cost range is in China. But why is so cheap in China, part of me just does not want to know.

[SeeGeeWhy]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Please expand on this:

I'm largely referring to the left leaning regressive movement "faced" by folks like Mark Z Jacobson and the Leap Manifesto crowd that want to go to 100% renewables as soon as possible.

I see that you're not in this group, and that we largely agree to use each technology available to its optimal extent.

Apologies, and I would like to dedicate the time to do this with you at some point because I believe it would be fruitful, but I cannot engage in a deeper exchange of statistics and arguments regarding the efficacy of renewables in specific jurisdictions at the moment.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

This is the most recent broad-based assessment of specific generating technology costs:

https://www.iea.org/Textbase/npsum/ElecCost2015SUM.pdf

Nice crisp, clean report. Look forward to reading it on the bus home. Thank you, sir.

[Leeman4Gilmour]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

The point to really debate in that analysis is how accurate are the nuclear numbers? It seems incredibly cheap, but then you look at real world construction costs happening right now and something doesn't square.
.

I think the answer to that question lies in the fact that the Nuclear Energy Agency helped write the report

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by heep223

Interesting that you're bringing up Spain as "initially taken the hit and now now they're becoming competitive". Spain is around the same size of economy as Canada so it's a good comparison.











Germany, who actually were on this before Spain was, is actually investing massively in coal consumption because of the loss of nuclear and the high cost of renewable:









You talk about an honest assessment of the data but it seems like you're leaving out some pretty key data. In Canada we have access to huge amounts of cheap natural gas to generate electricity and it's a pretty clean burning fuel. We already have the infrastructure (transmission, refining, production) in place to develop and consume natural gas.

If we can use some public profit from the Oil & Gas industry to support renewables then we should but I would draw the line there. But it would be completely irresponsible to continue to fund or introduce large scale support for this industry. I'm all for phasing out dirty coal completely in favour of cleaner natural gas, but taxpayer funding of large scale solar and/or wind industry is bound to end in disaster just like it has all over the world.

Let the renewable industry become competitive naturally, or with small reasonable support.

http://www.economist.com/news/busine...s-cost-del-sol

http://energyskeptic.com/2015/renewa...ly-and-the-uk/

I see this post has got alot of traction.

Too bad it's three years out of date in a sector that's moving by the month. Too bad alot of it is patently untrue and unsupported by the data I posted previously. Such as Germany investing massively in coal. How can you draw that conclusion based on the chart I posted above?

In either case, yes developing renewable energy was expensive. I never have said otherwise. Developing renewable energy now is not.

And it's all fine and well to launch barbs about your pet issue argue about side topics, and generally be a crank on this topic. It's the EASY work. Yes yes, renewables expensive, GHGs who cares, hippies - lets punch them and give ourselves high-fives.

But if you're going to do that, at least bring something more to the table than stale old articles about expensive renewable energy and complete fabrications about Germany's energiewende.

[Fuzz]

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/fact...olds-pay-power

Their renewable SURCHARGE is as much as our cost alone. How can an energy supply be equal in cost if it requires that kind of subsidy? I sincerely hope we don't follow that model.

[Ironhorse]

Haven't seen this mentioned yet.

Mohawk-driven protest against Energy East gains national momentum

The Mohawk nation is threatening to do everything legally in its power to block the Energy East pipeline project, calling it a threat to their way of life.
Despite perceptions opposition to the project is harboured mainly by mayors in Quebec, a Mohawk-driven Canadian First Nations movement against the project is picking up steam in other parts of the country.

Besides the official opposition of the Assembly of First Nations Quebec and Labrador representing 43 Quebec chiefs, the list against TransCanada’s pipeline now includes the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs — who are fighting their own pipeline battle — and the Iroquois Caucus regrouping Mohawk nations in Quebec and Ontario.

The level of anger in the First Nations and their complaint at having not been consulted is revealed in a bluntly worded six-page personal “nation-to-nation” style letter from Mohawk Kanesatake Grand Chief Serge “Otsi” Simon to Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/mohawk+...410/story.html

So are these guys now also being played against Canadian pipeline development, in a similar manner as the BC First Nations have allegedly been propped up by foreign interests? Calling it a "threat to their way of life" seems a little stretched and far reaching.

[Mr.Coffee]

nm

[burn_this_city]

Smuggling cigarettes and weed is a way of life worth protecting

[heep223]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

And it's all fine and well to launch barbs about your pet issue argue about side topics, and generally be a crank on this topic. It's the EASY work. Yes yes, renewables expensive, GHGs who cares, hippies - lets punch them and give ourselves high-fives.

But if you're going to do that, at least bring something more to the table than stale old articles about expensive renewable energy and complete fabrications about Germany's energiewende.

I'm not sure why you would accuse me of launching barbs, or that it's my pet issue. Neither are true. I read the thread and know a bit about this topic from previous work, and I'm simply presenting my opinion with my rationale. I like renewable energy and I support it, in fact I worked for a renewable energy company and have participated in diligence on investing in renewable energy. I just don't think that we should go the route of heavily subsidizing the industry with tax dollars, I believe it should become competitive mostly on its own. Your comment that "let's have an honest assessment of the data" and then overlooking a lot of the key data is what prompted me to write that post.

The Economist article is 2.5 years old and is relevant as it shows what can happen to a country if they go through the route of heavily subsidizing a high cost industry.

The ES article was published less than a year ago by a distinguished senior fellow at the Institute for Energy Research in Berlin, for use by US Congress. There are around 40 sources used for it.

That is all I will say on this matter.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Smuggling cigarettes and weed is a way of life worth protecting

Also hosting crooked internet poker sites...

[rubecube]

You guys know you can disagree with these tribes politically without being racist dickheads, right?

[Tron_fdc]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

This is the most recent broad-based assessment of specific generating technology costs:

https://www.iea.org/Textbase/npsum/ElecCost2015SUM.pdf



Take a look at the wind numbers. If you believe the findings then wind looks to be right in line with competing generation technologies. Of course, this is an aggregate across many countries and the specific costs are, as you say, reliant on the local geography and wind resource.

However, it doesn't really stand to pass that wind is such a cost-outlier as you paint.

The point to really debate in that analysis is how accurate are the nuclear numbers? It seems incredibly cheap, but then you look at real world construction costs happening right now and something doesn't square.

Hinkley point in the UK is delayed again. EDF is effectively insolvent from the Flammanville nuclear plant it's trying to build. The only nuclear that looks to be in that cost range is in China. But why is so cheap in China, part of me just does not want to know.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your chart even shows wind to be around USD$0.07/kWh as a generation cost. Take a look at the spot price of electricity in Alberta and tell me if it makes money. It's simple math. http://ets.aeso.ca. I'm not talking relative to other forms of generation either, I'm talking wind alone.

You can generate power over maybe 12 hours of the day, and when you're generating you are hoping the spot price is high or you're selling at a loss. Or you can contract your power to someone at a premium because it's renewable, but last I checked no one was going to do that when spot price is around $0.05/kWh. Enmax did it with their "green" program, but what people didn't understand was that they were just subsidizing construction costs of wind towers.

Wind was a VERY hard animal to deal with when coal was so cheap and ran 24 hours, where wind was "take what you can get". Add in natural gas turbine peak plants that could fire up at a moments notice during a price spike, and you can see why people were hesitant to spend money on it. Other forms made much, much more money.

Power price is also lower now than it was in the early 2000's, so without a huge increase in turbine efficiency or decrease in cost it leads me to believe it's even less viable these days than when I looked at it almost 2 decades ago. I'm ALL FOR renewable energy and I wish I was wrong, but wind generation was far too unpredictable with far too high start up cost to be viable. I would love to be proven wrong, I really really would, because I still have land next to our old site that I could stick 10 turbines on and make millions doing SFA if that were the case.

I have no dog in the nuclear fight either, I don't understand it and frankly don't want to look into that. I was just pointing out an economic assessment we did on wind generation.

[Tron_fdc]

Originally Posted by Leeman4Gilmour

I think the answer to that question lies in the fact that the Nuclear Energy Agency helped write the report

I'm having a tough time believing those coal numbers. Last I checked it was less than $0.02/kWh to generate electricity with coal. It was the cheapest of the cheap.

I've been out of the game a loooooong time though, so who knows.

Somewhere in my office I have a large file on all this, don't make me find it!