The Energy Transition and technologies

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Very good points. I'd add that the hottest hot days and the coldest cold days are very for wind output. These are days with the highest demand in Alberta.

Not having firm supply in winter is a life-threatening situation.

For a smaller market like Alberta, I do wonder how far a 1MW/150MW aqueous iron battery would go for the longer term storage. Like could you have an additional 10% renewable mix?

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Flacker

Quebec doesn't want to talk about this environmental disaster anymore, they look down there noses at Alberta, because their energy export infrastructure is already built out.

Quebec like Alberta could actually use more export lines. You could just change a few words in the second paragraph and it would describe Alberta's situation perfectly.



https://www.pressherald.com/2018/12/...acity-for-n-e/

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

For a smaller market like Alberta, I do wonder how far a 1MW/150MW aqueous iron battery would go for the longer term storage. Like could you have an additional 10% renewable mix?

Our consumption is around 10,000MW, so 1MW is not going to go far at all. Even 100 of those doesn't really move the needle. Wind generation is ~2000MW capacity. In the low times in January, it was around 150MW. So to make wind a reliable power source with batteries, to get a consistent say, 1000MW, that's 1000 of those batteries. Is that achievable? I haven't looked into the details of that battery plan.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Very good points. I'd add that the hottest hot days and the coldest cold days are very for wind output. These are days with the highest demand in Alberta.

Not having firm supply in winter is a life-threatening situation.

Exactly why we need a more interconnected grid so that we're not solely relying on wind/solar during the winter and we can tap into other provinces or states.

[Fuzz]

Does hydro take a big dip in winter as well? Or is it pretty steady year round when properly managed?

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I'm not saying to not build renewables, but you still require something else. You can't use batteries for a week in January when the wind is dead and solar is at near zero. You must replace coal capacity with gas in Alberta, there is no other choice. That's reality. Well, that or weeks of blackouts.

While this is true, we need to get in the weeds to see why this is less of an issue than one might think. Installation of the gas turbine is not actually that expensive. Even added to solar as backup it's at least competitive with a Combined Cycle Gas Turbine alone once carbon tax is factored in. To get down to the economics, renewables only real cost is the fixed cost for installation and a small amount for periodic maintenance. For CCGT you not only have the fixed installation costs, but then you're also paying the marginal cost of the gas for every kWh produced whereas the marginal cost of each kWh from wind and solar is virtually zero. It really depends on efficiencies of the turbines, local gas prices, and installed turbine price which are highly variable depending on where they're being built. I also would imagine as gas becomes less relied on for energy and production is disrupted, the prices will fluctuate a lot and it suddenly won't always be so cheap. That would favour gas as a back up a fair bit more

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

That would have to be regulated, which in a deregulated system would not be easy.

Last time BC stuck their fingers into the Ab system, BC Hydro was buying cheap power from Alberta at night, filling their dams, then opening their dams during the day and selling power back into Ab when prices spiked. IIRC (this was in 2002) it cost Albertans almost a billion dollars.

IMO you would need a regulated system between BC and Alberta, and it's REALLY complicated trying to marry up a deregulated system with a government owned and regulated one. I don't know how (or if) it would work.

The agreement between Newfoundland and Quebec is the most egregious example of what you have to watch out for in this agreements. Only 20 years left for NL to be continue getting hosed.

https://www.heritage.nf.ca/articles/...hill-falls.php

[Tron_fdc]

I’ve never heard of that agreement, but holy moly.

Is Quebec exporting power from that site state side? They must be. I assume they use what they need from local generation sources and export the rest.

They are literally profiteering off Newfoundland.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Reality. Gas plants can be planned and built a a few years. Nuclear in Alberta would be at least decade, if you ever got to the building phase, which I question if that is even possible these days. I know gas is not ideal, but it's not like we have a load of options.

Yup, at least a decade to get permitted, another decade to build, and most nuclear goes waaaaaaay overbudget. By that point, you're starting to be too late for the timeframes we need to get to net-zero within as well.

I'm not anti-nuclear in that I like that it's clean baseload energy and I can see a place for it. But it's timeline (decade+ to build if we start today) doesn't help and the tendency to go billions over budget/timeline is worrisome (but hey, if we're going to spend billions of public money, better off doing it on nuclear than a pipeline to nowhere or NWR refinery).

These aren't problems you can't solve, but they're definitely things to watch out for.

Could you imagine the blowback on a plan going 10 yrs and 10B overbudget? (oh wait, that's basically NWR boondoggle)

That puts Flamanville 10 years past its original due date. One of the more alarming causes for delay is a break in the “main secondary system penetration welds,” which has contributed to a budget that’s bloated from a planned $3.9 billion to $14.6 billion.

In July, “France’s Court of Auditors slammed the Flamanville build, saying EDF had vastly underestimated its cost and timetable for completion,” Montel reports: “The EPR reactor was originally expected to start commercial operation in 2013 and cost EUR3.3 billion. However, the project has been beset by delays and cost increases. Last October, EDF said necessary repairs to the reactor's main secondary system penetration welds will further increase the cost of constructing the Flamanville EPR to EUR12.4 billion. The loading of fuel into the reactor has also been further delayed until the end of 2022.”

https://www.popularmechanics.com/sci...xpensive-mess/

[SeeGeeWhy]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Our consumption is around 10,000MW, so 1MW is not going to go far at all. Even 100 of those doesn't really move the needle. Wind generation is ~2000MW capacity. In the low times in January, it was around 150MW. So to make wind a reliable power source with batteries, to get a consistent say, 1000MW, that's 1000 of those batteries. Is that achievable? I haven't looked into the details of that battery plan.

If you account for all of Alberta’s residential, commercial, industrial and transport uses, our consumption is equivalent to roughly 120GW.

[PeteMoss]

That is a good point, as more and more things are electrified you will need more production.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

That is a good point, as more and more things are electrified you will need more production.

Most estimates I've heard if I'm remembering correctly (and not just AB) are 3-5x more capacity will be needed as everything gets electrified.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

If you account for all of Alberta’s residential, commercial, industrial and transport uses, our consumption is equivalent to roughly 120GW.

Where are you seeing 120GW? I think you may have added a 0 there.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

Where are you seeing 120GW? I think you may have added a 0 there.

I presume he's adding in transport, industrial fuels, home heating...but it still sounds too high.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Torture

Most estimates I've heard if I'm remembering correctly (and not just AB) are 3-5x more capacity will be needed as everything gets electrified.

These estimates really vary as it depends locally on how much industry would be electrified, so Alberta would need a lot. More broadly though, it really depends on what technologies you're assuming will be used. For example, if you assume hydrogen fuel cell technology vs battery, long haul trucking would need 3 times as much electricity. It also ignores the biggest technology that can cut GHG: efficiency gains. It's not as sexy, but there's a ton of fat to trim but it's not clear all the gains that will be had if we look for them.

It's a safe bet to assume at very least 2.5-3 times globally

[SeeGeeWhy]

Originally Posted by Torture

Yup, at least a decade to get permitted, another decade to build, and most nuclear goes waaaaaaay overbudget. By that point, you're starting to be too late for the timeframes we need to get to net-zero within as well.

I'm not anti-nuclear in that I like that it's clean baseload energy and I can see a place for it. But it's timeline (decade+ to build if we start today) doesn't help and the tendency to go billions over budget/timeline is worrisome (but hey, if we're going to spend billions of public money, better off doing it on nuclear than a pipeline to nowhere or NWR refinery).

These aren't problems you can't solve, but they're definitely things to watch out for.

Could you imagine the blowback on a plan going 10 yrs and 10B overbudget? (oh wait, that's basically NWR boondoggle)

You've said so much in here worth touching on.

You're describing the US experience post-TMI when you talk about consistent time delays and cost overruns. Countries that are committed to a program have had tremendous success with their nuclear builds - (Lovering, et al).



This outcome is not a given. The US has too many parties that push their way in for a piece of the pie, and the fabricators, financiers and constructors all make money on keeping people happy. The plants can sustain ALL of this pork barrel bull####.

The EPR reactors being built are being done in a world where the gap between designers and fabricators is wider than ever. The lack of construction activity has allowed nuclear skill sets to atrophy and it does show in the results. Jury is still out on the cost-experience curve on the EPR and we may never get to see it's full potential as new designs that can reach very high temperatures are pretty much racing to prove commercial viability, China and Russia continue to expand their influence in this arena, and the concept of the EU continues to be tested. The UK appears to be very warm on the idea of revitalizing it's domestic skill base by building out both EPRs and promoting their own SMR program...

This is a big problem with Nuclear's first act... Once you get it going, don't let it stop. This inertia and requirement for multi-generational stewardship of knowledge, skill and materials is not a negative in my point of view, but one of the technology's largest benefits. It brings us in tune with thinking and acting for the long term, which is a rare driver it seems.

Nuclear has tremendous capacity and longevity. France decarbonized it's national grid in roughly 17 years. Renewables have been seriously commercial since the 70s during the oil embargo and have barely made a dent in the "low hanging fruit". When do we get to cleaning up transportation fuels and process heat demand for "stuff"? When do people recognize that there is nothing FAST about renewables, and that turning over an energy grid is a 100 year task at minimum?

And yes, energy demand is projected to increase by about 3x from today's rates on the merit of population and quality of life improvement projections. They typically do not account for the overbuild of low net energy producing technologies like renewables, or the declining net energy of our fossil fuel basket. No one can predict with reasonable precision what adapting to climate change will take, but I'd be willing to bet most people understand that this will not be a trivial effect after living through the last 12 months.

I don't know where people get the idea that we "still have time". The smart people in the room first saw this in 1896. We have had lots of time and still don't care, most people do not have the luxury to care over concerns of short term survival. We are too late to stop it, we are in full adaptation mode while also trying to put the brakes on it. We without question need to get serious about mastering carbon sequestration and manipulation on a global scale. This scenario is not the only one that would be rendered survivable with the ability to do this at "will" and outside of geologic timescales! THAT will take tremendous amounts of energy.

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

Where are you seeing 120GW? I think you may have added a 0 there.

Sadly, no. Don't forget how much energy we export via sales. The 120 GW number I used came from an NDP policy working group that my friend is involved with. They were assessing Alberta's total energy requirement and that was the value they landed on. I am just parroting.

Looking up published data, Alberta consumed 285 PJ of electricity in 2019 (about 9 MW of capacity running 24/7/365). We also consumed 2,125 PJ of natural gas, and another 1,319 PJ of refined petroleum products. 73 PJ of biofuels and "others" at 2 PJ. (LINK)

So you could say that electricity made up about 7.5% of our total energy diet.

Our industrial demand alone is something like 1/3 of Canada's total consumption IIRC...

How renewables hope to practically supplant this is not something I can defend in good faith.

[GGG]

One thing I don’t think their is enough experimentation and discussion around is geo-engineering situations to delay global warming.

At this point at a minimum we should be piloting injecting reflective materials in the stratosphere but it keeps being delayed based on fears around ethics and moral hazard. It’s the same type of thinking that holds back nuclear.

It doesn’t solve things like ocean acidification and it certainly will have affects that are not known on weather patterns but we need to act now.

We know that the world will not limit emissions to prevent 2 C of warming. We are failing. Battery, Power, and Carbon capture tech needs a little more time to get installed and used widely.

We need another 10 years or so of time and geo-engineering provides this.

[Street Pharmacist]

So many forecasts about electric vehicles are being rewritten every year. Ernst & Young came out with their latest revision in June that pegged the 50% market share in Europe by 2031, and China by 2032. The US would lag by 2036.
https://www.ey.com/en_au/news/2021/0...ed-ey-analysis


Then Biden today announces a goal of 50% in the US by 2030.

I ask this: if you're an automobile manufacturer, and you're seeing combustion engine bans in major cities by 2030, Europe seeing policy goals for banning combustion engine sales that keep getting revised sooner and sooner, and now the US is making policy goals to end the sale of combustion engines, why would you invest any capital in manufacturing more of them? It takes enormous capital costs to change your manufacturing footprint and of you're left behind you're toast.

I think the US will beat 50% before 2030

[Fuzz]

I think the big problem is securing battery manufacturing. Taking 1% of the market is the easy bit. Expanding battery production at the scale you need to convert your entire lineup to BEV's? That's a huge challenge, and probably a good reason why many companies will continue to develop more efficient ICE's. They'll really have to decide which vehicles are the best ones to alot limited battery resources to.

You look at the Ford Lighting, and it's OK, but it's no replacement for an ICE if you need to haul a trailer, or drive significant distances. These problems aren't solved yet.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I think the big problem is securing battery manufacturing. Taking 1% of the market is the easy bit. Expanding battery production at the scale you need to convert your entire lineup to BEV's? That's a huge challenge, and probably a good reason why many companies will continue to develop more efficient ICE's. They'll really have to decide which vehicles are the best ones to alot limited battery resources to.

You look at the Ford Lighting, and it's OK, but it's no replacement for an ICE if you need to haul a trailer, or drive significant distances. These problems aren't solved yet.

Issue is that most people who buy those trucks don't encounter those issues more than 1-2 times a year. There are definitely people who that will be a big problem for, but there needs to be some kind of model where you rent something for those situations and use electric the rest of the time.

People don't drive around U-hauls all year for the one time a year they make a purchase that needs a truck to move it.