The Energy Transition and technologies

[Azure]

We are seeing this across the board in countries not able to meet their needs with renewables or gas.

China is expanding mines to produce 220 million metric tons a year of extra coal, a nearly 6 percent rise from last year. China already digs up and burns more coal than the rest of the world combined. The effort is infused with patriotism. ... Rapid expansion means extra risks for the country's 2.6 million coal miners.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/28/b...0coal%20miners.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Azure

Not sure how you don't see that shuttering oil development in the US & Canada is now leading to the US asking other countries (who produce less green oil) for more oil which will lead to more emissions, while all being done in the name of being green. The same could be said for shutting down nuclear plants in California, Europe and many other regions. Germany basically blew up their nuclear energy production to appease the environmentalists. Now their coal production is off the charts.

Shutting down fossil fuel development in the name of 'going green' has not led to less fossil fuel usage. It has led to more.

Shuttering is the new name for record production in Alberta? I agree there are major barriers to expanding production but little action towards reducing production. Yes it’s frustrating that other jurisdictions can supply the incremental demand, but kicking off a Teck mega project isn’t going address that anytime soon, and investors are betting that the demand will wane long before a Teck is profitable.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by blender

Lots of back and forth here which makes for informative and entertaining reading.

Does anyone consider that energy shortages and high prices are actually the most beneficial thing that could happen in fighting climate change?

There is obviously a belief that we need to find a way to replace the carbon-emitting energy with something cleaner and many of the arguments here are correctly citing the obvious shortfall between our "needs" and what renewables are currently capable of. Perhaps the shortfall is the solution, at least until the technology is in place for a massive space-based solar array that wirelessly transmits electricity down to Earth.

I have thought this as well. The best thing to combat climate change is very expensive oil. The price crash of oil in 2015 was terrible for going green. The world will stop emitting CO2 as soon as not emitting C02 is cheaper.

And the only way for the cost of emissions to rise without requiring international agreements is for the underlying price to rise.

[Azure]

But wouldn't we need to accept the fact that high priced oil is probably going to lead to a lot more investment into oil?

To me that is why the carbon tax could work so well. High priced oil? Good for you, but find a way to extract it with less emissions and you pay less taxes.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Azure

But wouldn't we need to accept the fact that high priced oil is probably going to lead to a lot more investment into oil?

To me that is why the carbon tax could work so well. High priced oil? Good for you, but find a way to extract it with less emissions and you pay less taxes.

Yes, but also into oil alternatives.

It also means investment will be in expanding production. Low cost oil means we will invest into technology to more efficiently extract oil at the existing price making oil more resistant

High costs will also increase demand for electric and smaller vehicles. It also reduces Miles travelled.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by Azure

But wouldn't we need to accept the fact that high priced oil is probably going to lead to a lot more investment into oil?

To me that is why the carbon tax could work so well. High priced oil? Good for you, but find a way to extract it with less emissions and you pay less taxes.

Extraction is only a portion of the GHG's related to fossil fuels, it's the consumer who is generating a significant portion when they consume them. If we want to curb emissions via high taxes/prices then it's only fair to hit the consumer of the goods instead of only the producer.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Azure

But wouldn't we need to accept the fact that high priced oil is probably going to lead to a lot more investment into oil?

To me that is why the carbon tax could work so well. High priced oil? Good for you, but find a way to extract it with less emissions and you pay less taxes.

OPEC+ could increase output by 5+% tomorrow. This is strategic.

[Torture]

I am literally only bumping this thread to brag that I got an A+ on my paper discussing the opportunities, barriers, and commercialization of Hydrogen in my Business of Clean Tech MBA class.

...anybody want to talk about Hydrogen? How about Alberta's Hydrogen Roadmap (https://www.alberta.ca/hydrogen-roadmap.aspx) or Canada's Hydrogen strategy? (https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nr...a-na-en-v3.pdf)

Hydrogen has a lot of potential in the energy transition. Could be used as storage for intermittent renewables, an energy carrier that can be exported, heating/feedstock for industrial processes, transportation (potentially hard to decarbonize sectors like heavy duty, long haul, shipping, aviation, etc as I'd say EVs seem to have beat H2 fuel cells to market for passenger vehicles), there's a pilot project injecting it into natural gas, lots of cool potential.
Canada is actually positioned quite well for Hydrogen, whether that's "blue" hydrogen from natural gas paired w/ CCUS in AB/SK where we have the resources, the know-how, and the geology, or "green" hydrogen where we have abundant renewables (hydro in BC, MB, QC, maritimes, and potentially AB if as we bring on solar/wind capacity). Alberta is one of the larger producers of Hydrogen right now, although none of it is clean at the moment, nor is it used for energy.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Torture

I am literally only bumping this thread to brag that I got an A+ on my paper discussing the opportunities, barriers, and commercialization of Hydrogen in my Business of Clean Tech MBA class.

I got the paper recycle award in grade 7, so it's nice to know we both did something equally special.

[Julio]

OPG announces it is working with GE Hitachi on an SMR reactor @ Darlington:

https://www.opg.com/media_releases/o...ation-project/

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Julio

OPG announces it is working with GE Hitachi on an SMR reactor @ Darlington:

https://www.opg.com/media_releases/o...ation-project/

A classmate is working on that project. Pretty cool tech for brownfield sites. Could be a good application for the coal sites in Alberta.

[Muta]

Finally, a Fusion Reaction Has Generated More Energy Than Absorbed by The Fuel

https://www.sciencealert.com/for-the...ed-by-the-fuel

A major milestone has been breached in the quest for fusion energy.

For the first time, a fusion reaction has achieved a record 1.3 megajoule energy output – and for the first time, exceeding energy absorbed by the fuel used to trigger it.

Although there's still some way to go, the result represents a significant improvement on previous yields: eight times greater than experiments conducted just a few months prior, and 25 times greater than experiments conducted in 2018. It's a huge achievement.

[zamler]

I don't believe them.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by zamler

I don't believe them.

Fusion like many other buzz words should illicit an initial skeptical response for sure

[opendoor]

It generated more than was absorbed by the fuel, but it still didn't produce more energy than it used. It produced 1.35 MJ while requiring 1.9 MJ, for a Q of 0.7, which is roughly on par with what was achieved 25 years ago in the UK.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Torture

I am literally only bumping this thread to brag that I got an A+ on my paper discussing the opportunities, barriers, and commercialization of Hydrogen in my Business of Clean Tech MBA class.

...anybody want to talk about Hydrogen? How about Alberta's Hydrogen Roadmap (https://www.alberta.ca/hydrogen-roadmap.aspx) or Canada's Hydrogen strategy? (https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nr...a-na-en-v3.pdf)

Hydrogen has a lot of potential in the energy transition. Could be used as storage for intermittent renewables, an energy carrier that can be exported, heating/feedstock for industrial processes, transportation (potentially hard to decarbonize sectors like heavy duty, long haul, shipping, aviation, etc as I'd say EVs seem to have beat H2 fuel cells to market for passenger vehicles), there's a pilot project injecting it into natural gas, lots of cool potential.
Canada is actually positioned quite well for Hydrogen, whether that's "blue" hydrogen from natural gas paired w/ CCUS in AB/SK where we have the resources, the know-how, and the geology, or "green" hydrogen where we have abundant renewables (hydro in BC, MB, QC, maritimes, and potentially AB if as we bring on solar/wind capacity). Alberta is one of the larger producers of Hydrogen right now, although none of it is clean at the moment, nor is it used for energy.

I'm very envious as that would be such a cool program to be in and that's a fascinating topic because opinions are so divergent.

By now I think most people know my position on hydrogen as being more a barrier to the transition than a tool to help. The biggest question I'd have for you is the excitement around blending with natgas. A 20% blend will net much less than a 6% reduction in GHG emissions and cost a lot to produce and deliver, plus require a ton of infrastructure upgrade. Wouldn't it be way cheaper and better to electrify most heating? I know we're very Canadian winter focused here, but for almost all of the world, hot water and space heating would be better off electrified. What's the benefit of adding H2 to natgas?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I'm very envious as that would be such a cool program to be in and that's a fascinating topic because opinions are so divergent.

By now I think most people know my position on hydrogen as being more a barrier to the transition than a tool to help. The biggest question I'd have for you is the excitement around blending with natgas. A 20% blend will net much less than a 6% reduction in GHG emissions and cost a lot to produce and deliver, plus require a ton of infrastructure upgrade. Wouldn't it be way cheaper and better to electrify most heating? I know we're very Canadian winter focused here, but for almost all of the world, hot water and space heating would be better off electrified. What's the benefit of adding H2 to natgas?

Currently in Alberta it doesn't make sense to heat water or homes with electric. We are transitioning most of our generating capacity to natural gas, so why burn it, turn it to electricity, transmit it, then use that electricity to heat water? Sounds inefficient. It would also mean building even more infrastructure to power it all.


As for adding H2 to natgas, I haven't seen any numbers on it. Does it make sense to produce H2 from natgas, capture the co2 in the first process, then burn it more efficiently? No idea. I'd really hope someone does know before doing it. But it might make sense.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Currently in Alberta it doesn't make sense to heat water or homes with electric. We are transitioning most of our generating capacity to natural gas, so why burn it, turn it to electricity, transmit it, then use that electricity to heat water? Sounds inefficient. It would also mean building even more infrastructure to power it all.


As for adding H2 to natgas, I haven't seen any numbers on it. Does it make sense to produce H2 from natgas, capture the co2 in the first process, then burn it more efficiently? No idea. I'd really hope someone does know before doing it. But it might make sense.

Numbers kind of work like this:

H2 cannot exceed about 20-25% by volume or the infrastructure we currently have won't work at all. The issue with that is h2 is much less dense than natgas, so to get the same heating energy you need to burn 13% more. That puts you down to maybe a 6% reduction in GHG emissions.

Then you have to think about the additional losses from distribution as adding h2 requires more compression, causes more leaks due to embrittlement of the steel in pipes, and if you're using blue h2 then you've already blown it because it's still fairly high in GHG intensity

[Street Pharmacist]

A new group of scientists just started the Hydrogen Science Coalition to bring evidence based arguments to the hydrogen discussion. It's a great resource to help fight the hydrogen lobbying going on around the world. Many O&G companies are pushing for hydrogen because it would allow them to keep operating their businesses, but much of it is a delay tactic and completely disregards the continued GHG emissions that would then come with it. Their 4 key recommendations:

1)The only zero emissions hydrogen is green hydrogen

2)Hydrogen shouldn’t delay existing electrification solutions

3)We need to decarbonise grey hydrogen first

4) Blending hydrogen into the gas grid is a waste


https://h2sciencecoalition.com/

They go into great detail on each point

[Street Pharmacist]

Electric vehicles now almost 11% of global sales in Q3 2021.

https://t.co/JXInmlsDdg




We are always so focused on our own surroundings I think the transition to EVs is being missed by most Canadians I talk to. We're likely less than 5 years away from the majority of new vehicles being electric globally and they're still treated here like a complete novelty.