The Energy Transition and technologies

[RichieRich]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

It's not theoretical. That will be the installed capacity at August 1st.

It's called a "nameplate" value which means it's a maximum capacity production value. Most production oriented systems (could be oil and gas, electrical transmission, vehicles, etc...) have a so-called nameplate or maximum production amount. This amount *assumes* key performance-related inputs and efficiencies are met resulting in a theoretical maximum capacity.



Don't mistake capacity for actual reasonable production, which was why I included those other links where you can see that the majority of production rarely meets installed capacity or is able to reach and sustain a higher-efficiency at steady state. Especially when it comes to solar and wind.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by #-3

Residential production also creates a different infrastructure problem, because grids aren't designed to carry large amounts of power away from these communities. Not sure if still true, but one of the hosts of SGU mentioned a couple years ago when he install roof top solar that they had to analyze the number of other houses in his area with existing panels before approving the extra supply going into the grid. Probably part of the solution, but also probably a very small part.

Sounds related to a problem that Australia is seeing. The popularity of rooftop solar means that the neighborhood voltage during midday can be pushed higher than desirable, which could lead to excess power use, increased electric device wear and inverters for solar systems shutting down.


https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-...ption/10460212

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by RichieRich

It's called a "nameplate" value which means it's a maximum capacity production value. Most production oriented systems (could be oil and gas, electrical transmission, vehicles, etc...) have a so-called nameplate or maximum production amount. This amount *assumes* key performance-related inputs and efficiencies are met resulting in a theoretical maximum capacity.

If you spent any time looking at those links you posted earlier you'd know that for many assets their total net generation regularly matches or exceeds the MC rating. At this exact moment there are three solar generators producing at their MC rating. That is not theoretical. There are also ISO Tarriff implications with that rating.

In short, the MC rating is not the same as nameplate and is not theoretical.

Originally Posted by RichieRich

Don't mistake capacity for actual reasonable production, which was why I included those other links where you can see that the majority of production rarely meets installed capacity or is able to reach and sustain a higher-efficiency at steady state. Especially when it comes to solar and wind.

Literally nobody in this thread is making that mistake.

[Fuzz]

TransAlta Corp. has taken another step in its goal of becoming carbon neutral by completing the second of three planned coal-to-gas conversions at its Alberta Thermal power generation facilities near Wabamun.

The Keephills conversion cost $31.5 million while another $64.7 million was spent on system upgrades, gas infrastructure and maintenance projects.
It was the second conversion project after Sundance Unit 6 was converted in February. Keephills Unit 3 will be converted later this year.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...108023?cmp=rss


I'm amazed how cheap this was. That's gotta be one of the easiest wins in emissions reductions.

[zamler]

carbon neutrality by 2050

I'll be the wet blanket, this is pathetic.

[RichieRich]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

If you spent any time looking at those links you posted earlier you'd know that for many assets their total net generation regularly matches or exceeds the MC rating. At this exact moment there are three solar generators producing at their MC rating. That is not theoretical. There are also ISO Tarriff implications with that rating.

In short, the MC rating is not the same as nameplate and is not theoretical.

Literally nobody in this thread is making that mistake.

You're trying to come across as though you have worked this equipment, or other production equipment. Is that your intent? Have you sized, built, designed, installed, and provided support for these and other production related equipments?

[Nufy]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...108023?cmp=rss


I'm amazed how cheap this was. That's gotta be one of the easiest wins in emissions reductions.

Did they change the driver...or just the heat source...

The latter is way cheaper.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...108023?cmp=rss


I'm amazed how cheap this was. That's gotta be one of the easiest wins in emissions reductions.

You have to wonder how much it cost them in lost profit though. Burning coal had to be way cheaper. The true cost to the company could be hundreds of millions.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

You have to wonder how much it cost them in lost profit though. Burning coal had to be way cheaper. The true cost to the company could be hundreds of millions.

Is it? I honestly don't know but the legislative requirement was to stop them or convert by 2030 (with the possibility of the UCP/Cons coming in and extending/removing that). So doing it a decade earlier seems more like a business case than meeting a legal requirement super early.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

You have to wonder how much it cost them in lost profit though. Burning coal had to be way cheaper. The true cost to the company could be hundreds of millions.

My inlaws have a cabin on Wabamun nearby to here. No doubt the coal is cheaper, the facility is right on top of a huge mine.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

You have to wonder how much it cost them in lost profit though. Burning coal had to be way cheaper. The true cost to the company could be hundreds of millions.

Honestly who cares

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

You have to wonder how much it cost them in lost profit though. Burning coal had to be way cheaper. The true cost to the company could be hundreds of millions.

According to this, carbon tax on high heat value coal goes from $45.03/tonne in 2020 to $112.58 per tonne in 2022. So it may make a whole lot of financial sense to do it now.

https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-age...rge-rates.html

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

According to this, carbon tax on high heat value coal goes from $45.03/tonne in 2020 to $112.58 per tonne in 2022. So it may make a whole lot of financial sense to do it now.

https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-age...rge-rates.html

Carbon tax doing carbon tax things.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Nufy

Did they change the driver...or just the heat source...

The latter is way cheaper.

Just the heat source, I believe. So these plants will be way less efficient than a modern combined cycle gas generator.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

According to this, carbon tax on high heat value coal goes from $45.03/tonne in 2020 to $112.58 per tonne in 2022. So it may make a whole lot of financial sense to do it now.

https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-age...rge-rates.html

I'm sure its just not politically viable for any party in Alberta to introduce a provincial carbon plan but you'd think that would be on top of the list of Alberta first solutions over RCMP and CPP now that the courts have said they have to do it.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

I'm sure its just not politically viable for any party in Alberta to introduce a provincial carbon plan but you'd think that would be on top of the list of Alberta first solutions over RCMP and CPP now that the courts have said they have to do it.

We sure stuck it to Trudeau by only having TIER and letting the Federal backstop come in!

[#-3]

Originally Posted by edslunch

Carbon tax doing carbon tax things.

Yep, literally the core premise of a carbon tax is to have Coal pay back the damage that it is doing to the environment at such a rate that it prevents them from doing further damage.

The problem not so much pricing coal out of the market, it's pretty much universally agreed we would like to do that. But collective action, where you need to ensure you are not diminishing your economic potential as compared to other economies that aren't pricing things this way.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by #-3

Yep, literally the core premise of a carbon tax is to have Coal pay back the damage that it is doing to the environment at such a rate that it prevents them from doing further damage.

The problem not so much pricing coal out of the market, it's pretty much universally agreed we would like to do that. But collective action, where you need to ensure you are not diminishing your economic potential as compared to other economies that aren't pricing things this way.

Kind of. I'm no economist, and I may be wrong (though that's never ever happened), but looking around the world at how carbon prices are introduced it looks like they're financial mechanisms to signal to business some idea that they can plan their business around in the future rather than stop emitting sources immediately and throwing the economy into chaos. You cannot easily put a price on the carbon for what damage it's causing as that would be highly variable depending on how you look at it. Rather, if you need to go to 50% GHG emissions by 2030, you get economists to figure out what costs would spur innovation and make high emission sources less profitable.

If you're an energy company that owns coal plants for example, it gives you some concrete ways to plan your future while leaving options up to you. If you're a large company that owns commercial real estate, it gives you some idea of what options you can do to cut heating costs in the future. If you're an industrial/commercial HVAC suplier, you now have a good idea of what business is going to look like as investment dollars come flowing in to GHG emission cutting technologies to install causing the proces to go down.

I know they're dirty words in Alberta, but it's absolutely needed to cut GHG emission in any type of time frame to have a Carbon Tax

[Torture]

Yup. And even without a carbon tax new coal plants aren't that economical compared to renewables the way the prices of wind and solar have fallen in the past several years.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Kind of. I'm no economist, and I may be wrong (though that's never ever happened), but looking around the world at how carbon prices are introduced it looks like they're financial mechanisms to signal to business some idea that they can plan their business around in the future rather than stop emitting sources immediately and throwing the economy into chaos. You cannot easily put a price on the carbon for what damage it's causing as that would be highly variable depending on how you look at it. Rather, if you need to go to 50% GHG emissions by 2030, you get economists to figure out what costs would spur innovation and make high emission sources less profitable.

If you're an energy company that owns coal plants for example, it gives you some concrete ways to plan your future while leaving options up to you. If you're a large company that owns commercial real estate, it gives you some idea of what options you can do to cut heating costs in the future. If you're an industrial/commercial HVAC suplier, you now have a good idea of what business is going to look like as investment dollars come flowing in to GHG emission cutting technologies to install causing the proces to go down.

I know they're dirty words in Alberta, but it's absolutely needed to cut GHG emission in any type of time frame to have a Carbon Tax

Fair, I was a little over simplified. But saying 'damn Carbon Price, you moved coal form $40 to $120'. At the end of the day that was the point, to 'artificially' make coal cost more than other things, because the industry has no way of capturing it's negative externalities.