The Energy Transition and technologies

[Torture]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Was that article updated for 2021?

Woops. I googled to find it and went with the old one I guess.
There's an updated one that I saw Leach tweeting...let me see if I can find it.

Nevermind, somebody was tweeting the 2019 version. I need more coffee today. dohhh *facepalm*

[zamler]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

The amount of transmission you'd have to build to service the load would cost a fortune.

How much?

[PeteMoss]

Not that it will it be binding - but today Biden announced a target of 45% of all US electricity to come from solar by 2050 (currently 4%).

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by zamler

How much?

The two DC lines built in Alberta were roughly $2B each for about 350km, including the terminals.

Line costs alone are probably in the order of 2.5~3M/mile.

[darockwilder]

https://phys.org/news/2021-09-superc...-strength.html

[Street Pharmacist]

Listened to the most recent episode of Energy Transition podcast about methane emissions.

It was an interview with Georges Tijbosch from a new non-profit called MiQ who's goal is to regulate and standardize methane emissions across the industry so consumers and buyers can choose to buy lower emission products. As he explained, over a 20 year span methane is about 84x worse for heat trapping than CO2, and very little is known about methane emissions from well to consumer. Losses are everywhere in the chain and very little good work has been done to standardize the emissions so they can be quantified and acted upon. By his estimation moving everyone to best in class would be the equivalent of taking 1.2 Billion cars off the road.

Firstly, I haven't heard these types of numbers thrown around before, and if it were that large, one would have to think there would have been more focus on this by now. Which makes me then think, is this an industry push through non-profit to use environmental branding to gain market share over "dirtier" production countries like Russia and Iran? The only reason I don't think that is true is that MiQ appears to be an offshoot of the Rocky Mountain Institute which doesn't seem to be in step with O&G industry.

If this is the case, has there been a better opportunity for Alberta to go this way? I'm certain Norway is already leading on this front, but Canada could quickly put in these types of industry standards and sell LNG as "cleaner" gas than our competitors?


I'm really interested in what those in the gas industry think of all this. Is it all nonsense? Would the means to lower leakage/flaring eat too much into margins to be worthwhile? Is it even feasible with all of the different production methods?

[GGG]

There are lots of methane reduction initiatives out there in O+G.

In general venting even small amounts gets you lots of scrutiny.

https://www.canada.ca/en/environment...perations.html

[Table 5]

Energy prices in Europe have been skyrocketing lately (nat gas is 5x higher than at the same time in 2019), leading countries on the forefront of renewables to turn back to diesel and coal to supply their energy needs. From what it sounds like, the situation this winter may get even worse.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michael...h=5609ae3b424a

But the heavy reliance on renewables in Europe and the United States has made electricity supply more vulnerable to a single commodity’s volatility. Today’s electricity grids mean that high gas prices cause energy price spikes and a return to the dirtiest forms of electricity production, including diesel and coal.

The return to coal was most dramatic in Germany. Electricity from wind was 20% lower in Germany in the first half of 2021 than the first half of 2020, resulting in a 24% higher use of fossil fuels and 28% greater emissions from electricity. Coal was the number one source of energy for electricity in Germany in the first half of 2021, comprising 27% of total electricity.

But other nations faced the same problem. Last week, Ireland was forced to warn of blackouts “due to a generation shortfall.” Lack of wind in Britain led its electricity grid operator to ask French electricity giant, Électricité de France, to restart a coal plant in Nottinghamshire. And California regulators last week requested permission from the federal government to violate air pollution regulations so fossil fuel plants, including diesel ones, can operate more than anticipated.

It also sounds like many of these countries are slowly starting to change their mind about nuclear, which I'm glad to hear. It takes years and lots of money to ramp up, but once going, it provides reliable, affordable and clean baseload energy for decades. In the long term, I have much more faith it in than wind or solar.

High natural gas prices, and declining investor enthusiasm for renewables, increase the chance that governments will keep nuclear plants operating in the U.S., Europe, and Asia. Yesterday, the Illinois legislature passed legislation, advocated by a pro-nuclear coalition led by labor unions, Radiant Energy Fund, and the Campaign for a Green Nuclear Deal, to keep two nuclear plants operating.

Now, support is growing for keeping nuclear plants operating in Belgium, South Korea, California, and even Germany. Although Korea’s once-proud nuclear construction industry has been severely damaged and several reactors closed and cancelled, nuclear sentiment is high. In a poll earlier this month, 70% of South Koreans said the country should maintain or expand nuclear electricity, including 80% of those under 30 years old.

New voices are speaking up for nuclear power in Belgium. Assita Kanko, a charismatic and up-and-coming Member of the European Parliament for Belgium, has been speaking out on television and social media for keeping all of Belgium’s nuclear plants operating. Maarten Boudry, a professor at Ghent University, is circulating a petition to save all seven of Belgium’s nuclear plants. And on Saturday, 300 pro-nuclear activists rallied at a “Stand Up for Nuclear” event in front of the Brussels-Centraal Train Station. Emmeric Massaut, an aerospace engineer who works for Belgium’s rail agency, closed the event with an impassioned plea to save nuclear plants around the world.

[Fuzz]

Germany's sudden distaste for nuclear after Fukushima was one of the stupidest knee-jerk reactions a country has ever made.

[Table 5]

At some point, Germany too will come around on nuclear. Until then, their citizens get to enjoy Europe's highest energy prices, suffer through needless blackouts, and watch their politicians slowly hand over their energy security (and thus autonomy) to countries like Russia.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Energy prices in Europe have been skyrocketing lately (nat gas is 5x higher than at the same time in 2019), leading countries on the forefront of renewables to turn back to diesel and coal to supply their energy needs. From what it sounds like, the situation this winter may get even worse.

To compound the problem, the major interconnector between France and the UK had a fire today and initial reports is that 1 GW of transmission capacity will be offline till March, after peak winter season.


https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/bri...te-2021-09-15/

[Street Pharmacist]

I wonder if this boosts support for distributed generation in the UK. They already have pretty high uptake, but energy security is likely to become more and more top of mind. Russia is holding a gun to their heads here

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I wonder if this boosts support for distributed generation in the UK. They already have pretty high uptake, but energy security is likely to become more and more top of mind. Russia is holding a gun to their heads here

I doubt it. It's going to drive them back to reliable generation sources.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I doubt it. It's going to drive them back to reliable generation sources.

I'm not so sure about that. Temporarily, sure. But their stated goals and electorate are all on the same page of decreasing GHG emissions and I don't see rising gas costs pushing them backwards

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I'm not so sure about that. Temporarily, sure. But their stated goals and electorate are all on the same page of decreasing GHG emissions and I don't see rising gas costs pushing them backwards

What other distributed generation source will help the UK here? A big cause of the problem is the lousy wind performance in the UK and Western Europe in general since April, and especially the last two weeks. And the UK has never been considered sunny.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I wonder if this boosts support for distributed generation in the UK. They already have pretty high uptake, but energy security is likely to become more and more top of mind. Russia is holding a gun to their heads here

Considering how they are demonstrating their exact vulnerabilities right now, I'm not sure if doubling-down on approaches that rely on renewable energy is the long-term answer for stability. While I see them part of the mix, they've shown to be pretty poor generators of baseload energy.

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I'm not so sure about that. Temporarily, sure. But their stated goals and electorate are all on the same page of decreasing GHG emissions and I don't see rising gas costs pushing them backwards

The electorate may be on the same page now, but a sustained period of significantly higher prices, coupled with some severe energy instability, may sway their tune. Everybody is an idealist until it affects them personally.

This is also pretty much why I'm personally a fan of nuclear playing a much bigger role moving forward. It's clean, energy-dense, AND reliable. It's an energy source that will help us reach emissions targets without cutting ourselves off at the knees.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Considering how they are demonstrating their exact vulnerabilities right now, I'm not sure if doubling-down on approaches that rely on renewable energy is the long-term answer for stability. While I see them part of the mix, they've shown to be pretty poor generators of baseload energy.



The electorate may be on the same page now, but a sustained period of significantly higher prices, coupled with some severe energy instability, may sway their tune. Everybody is an idealist until it affects them personally.

This is also pretty much why I'm personally a fan of nuclear playing a much bigger role moving forward. It's clean, energy-dense, AND reliable. It's an energy source that will help us reach emissions targets without cutting ourselves off at the knees.

I guess this is about perspective. EU governments aren't going back on coal due to both price and legislation. It just isn't happening. The problem here isn't renewables. Yes wind is low, but that's happened lots. The problem is that gas is 5x normal price. Relying more heavily on gas or coal isn't going to solve that problem. The nuclear question is one many are suggesting, but they aren't going to dip their toes again after the Hinkley Point C disaster.

The only way out is energy independence with more renewables mixed with reasonable energy storage. Everything else will lead to what they're seeing today.

[Fuzz]

The problem is there currently isn't any grid scale storage in existence. Pumped hydro is probably the best, but limited where and how much can be used. Batteries don't last long enough. What else is currently available?

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

What else is currently available?

Electric vehicles.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

The problem is there currently isn't any grid scale storage in existence. Pumped hydro is probably the best, but limited where and how much can be used. Batteries don't last long enough. What else is currently available?

Iron air batteries look promising for medium duration, but seasonal still isn't solved. It's going to have to be gas for the dunkelflaute until that's solved, but I'm not sure there's any way out of this but to build more renewables. Nuclear would not be cheaper on average. The only nuclear plant in the UK under construction was going to be built in 6 years and cost £18B, it's now going to be 9 years and £23B and likely to go much higher. The initial ground surveys to asses suitability for the site were in 2006. That's 15 years ago and it's not expected to power anything until 2026. We need to lower the GHG emissions a lot by 2030, so it's just not going to cut it