The Energy Transition and technologies

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by timun

In Calgary's climate the requisite heating capacity is significantly more than cooling, so it's not uncommon that either

1) the cooling capacity is grossly oversized and you get short-cycling as you described, or
2) you quite deliberately undersize the heating capacity and leave the deficit for a "back-up" gas-fired or electric (resistive) furnace.

Option 2) isn't so bad really, as you need the additional heat source for peak conditions anyway, but it means deliberately less use of the heating cycle and not taking advantage of outdoor conditions where the heat pump's COP could be significantly better than the thermal efficiency of your furnace.

This is a interesting wrinkle I wasn't aware of. I wonder if there could be a way fix this from a technological standpoint? Like maybe reduce the cooling intensity to avoid the short cycling?

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Julio

Sask has been buying from Man Hydro for years, but have greatly increased that in the last few years with new transmission lines being built.



It seems like power suppliers in Canada don't play that well amongst themselves. It seems that relying on interprovincial transmission for anything other than occasional help is the exception rather than the rule in Canada.

Way higher demand in Minnesota than in Manitoba OR Saskatchewan.

The upper Midwest is also pretty well interconnected which makes way more opportunities to market electrons.

Manitoba Hydro built a 500kv line to Grand Rapids that went into service in 2020. The estimate for the project was $2.2B in 2017 and the final coat was $8.9B.

Aside from ONT/QUE and BC/AB, I don't see the economics for interprovincial transmission at this stage. Carbon prices will have to go way up for it to make sense or you will need some pretty sweet incentives from the Feds to get it to go. Merchant transmission isn't really a thing, yet. There is a 300 MW, 230 kV merchant line between Alberta and Montana that pretty much is importing almost all of the time.

I am on record in this thread (and pretty much anywhere else) that it's criminal a line to Site C isn't in active development. The big generators in Alberta must have an incredibly powerful lobby with the provincial government.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by timun

In Calgary's climate the requisite heating capacity is significantly more than cooling, so it's not uncommon that either

1) the cooling capacity is grossly oversized and you get short-cycling as you described, or
2) you quite deliberately undersize the heating capacity and leave the deficit for a "back-up" gas-fired or electric (resistive) furnace.

Option 2) isn't so bad really, as you need the additional heat source for peak conditions anyway, but it means deliberately less use of the heating cycle and not taking advantage of outdoor conditions where the heat pump's COP could be significantly better than the thermal efficiency of your furnace.

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

This is a interesting wrinkle I wasn't aware of. I wonder if there could be a way fix this from a technological standpoint? Like maybe reduce the cooling intensity to avoid the short cycling?

It's really not an issue at all. Almost everywhere with any kind of real heating/cooling needs has a mismatch between heating and cooling loads. You just size the equipment for whichever is more appropriate; generally that's heating for heating-dominated climates and cooling for cooling-dominated climates.

Short cycling can be an issue, but it's more of a problem with modulating equipment. My main heat pump can output between 3K-26K BTUs in heating or cooling mode, so if the cooling needs are less than 3K, then it'll kick on and off pretty regularly which isn't great for units that are designed to run 24 hours a day. But by the time it gets warm enough inside to warrant turning it on, the cooling needs are at least that high.

And with non-modulating central heat pumps, they're not designed to run all the time (except at the design temperature) so they can easily handle turning on and off a few times per hour which is basically what happens during smaller indoor/outdoor temperature deltas. And if it turns into a real issue, it's trivial to get a thermostat that can have minimum cycle on/off times set on it.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I know nothing about building infrastructure like gas lines, but I cannot see an Atlantic LNG terminal and pipeline from the west being ready by 2026 even if we solved all territorial issues and environmental disputes today.

Doesn't need to be in atlantic Canada, pipeline from Hardisty to Churchill.

A company like Brookfield could make this happen with meaningful Indigenous participation. By meaningful, I mean 50.1/49.9% equity split.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Doesn't need to be in atlantic Canada, pipeline from Hardisty to Churchill.

A company like Brookfield could make this happen with meaningful Indigenous participation. By meaningful, I mean 50.1/49.9% equity split.

But even then, is it ready in time to be economically viable? With every western nation pushing hard for electrification of heat and virtually all new generation being low/non carbon emitting I don't see where the demand outlook would make a company want to sink billions into developing the project. Maybe a gas pipeline of this type has a short payback period?

[DoubleK]

I'm sure there are plenty of countries in Africa that will take nat gas. From an emissions perspective it's far better than what they are burning now.

Not sure on the economics of gas pipelines. There has to be someone on CP who works for TCE or Enbridge, who would know better. I can't imagine the economic life being any less than 50 years.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Doesn't need to be in atlantic Canada, pipeline from Hardisty to Churchill.

A company like Brookfield could make this happen with meaningful Indigenous participation. By meaningful, I mean 50.1/49.9% equity split.

The Churchill idea sounds great on paper and has been a conservative wet dream for ages but in reality, it's not going to happen.

The rail tracks are garbage and expensive to maintain because they're built on muskeg. A pipeline would be insanely expensive to go through the Canadian shield or muskeg.
Once you get to Churchill, Hudson Bay has ice on average, 112 days per year so you'd need an entire fleet of icebreakers, more than Canada currently has. Right now the port is only open for shipping from July to October.
Not to mention that it's critically sensitive environment and crosses several indigenous territories, to an indigenous owned port and they have already voiced concerns about spills if oil was to be transported up there. Even if you manage to build a pipe, clear the ice, get indigenous ownership on board, now you need to get all the staples that the workers need up there. (guess we're back to fixing that garbage rail line that the company pulled out on because it was too expensive to maintain so the government had to bail it out). The economics just don't work out.

Here's a couple takes (on the oil idea rather than NG but same challenges) where they all conclude the same thing. .
https://www.sasktoday.ca/north/opini...peline-4145175
https://www.brandonsun.com/opinion/e...ded-in-reality
https://www.thompsoncitizen.net/opin...ctical-6069049
https://thenarwhal.ca/port-of-churchill-explainer/
Even Brian Jean says it's a pipedream: https://twitter.com/BrianJeanAB/stat...41526026780672

Stop trying to make Churchill happen, it's not going to happen

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

I'm sure there are plenty of countries in Africa that will take nat gas. From an emissions perspective it's far better than what they are burning now.

Not sure on the economics of gas pipelines. There has to be someone on CP who works for TCE or Enbridge, who would know better. I can't imagine the economic life being any less than 50 years.

Yes LNG will not be disappearing anytime soon, but there's LNG terminals being built now to service markets that will largely not exist or be severely diminished over the next 15-25 years. Markets like Europe and many Asian countries won't be significant buyers anymore, so what does that do for prices? Africa will grow their LNG infrastructure and likely use LNG, but that's not enough to buck the overall trend. The IEA forecasts are never iron clad, but I'd ask this if you think they're looking in the wrong direction: Europe cut gas by 20% in one year because they had to, how many other places will able to do even a quarter of that?

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Yes LNG will not be disappearing anytime soon, but there's LNG terminals being built now to service markets that will largely not exist or be severely diminished over the next 15-25 years. Markets like Europe and many Asian countries won't be significant buyers anymore, so what does that do for prices? Africa will grow their LNG infrastructure and likely use LNG, but that's not enough to buck the overall trend. The IEA forecasts are never iron clad, but I'd ask this if you think they're looking in the wrong direction: Europe cut gas by 20% in one year because they had to, how many other places will able to do even a quarter of that?

Developing Asia is expected to more than offset EU weening itself off LNG. I think your time horizon is quite narrow sighted. LNG will be alive in kicking well into the 2050's. A lot of modelling is under weighing the impact of a developing Africa as well. Many of the best energy analysts are discounting the IEA projections these days including Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Leondros

Developing Asia is expected to more than offset EU weening itself off LNG. I think your time horizon is quite narrow sighted. LNG will be alive in kicking well into the 2050's. A lot of modelling is under weighing the impact of a developing Africa as well. Many of the best energy analysts are discounting the IEA projections these days including Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan.

I guess it depends on if you believe the current climate concerns accelerate the transition or not. BP's own analysis doesn't see NG growth unless we continue business as usual

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I guess it depends on if you believe the current climate concerns accelerate the transition or not. BP's own analysis doesn't see NG growth unless we continue business as usual

BP has lost a lot of credibility recently. Especially when their CEO has done virtually a 180 degree pivot. I do believe there needs to be and will be a transition - I however also believe that transition will not happen as fast as it needs to or as fast as people would like.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/daneber...gy-transition/

At the end of the day money talks. The transition is great but when you have people who can't afford to cook their meals or heat their homes economics are going to come back into play. Most projections I have seen seem overly optimistic and fail to contemplate the true impact on people's lifestyles. The environment is sexy until it starts impacting you and your family, at that point it starts to take a passenger seat. We are seeing it right now with the ESG movement - investors are doing a complete 180 when we are talking to the big funds right now.

[Torture]

Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan have smart energy analysts because their opinion aligns with mine but these other companies and international agencies don't have smart energy analysts because they say something different is not exactly a super strong argument that would have me betting the farm on long term LNG growth. An op-ed from the CEO of a drilling company doesn't exactly tip the scales either.

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by Torture

Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan have smart energy analysts because their opinion aligns with mine but these other companies and international agencies don't have smart energy analysts because they say something different is not exactly a super strong argument that would have me betting the farm on long term LNG growth. An op-ed from the CEO of a drilling company doesn't exactly tip the scales either.

It has absolutely nothing to do with opinions. Its what is grounded by facts and reality versus what is based on pie in the sky modeling. But sure, don't listen to the industry, we are all biased and have no idea what we are talking about and have only been living and breathing this for decades.

A lot of internal modeling shows Canadian LNG is economic for many decades. There are a lot of smart finance people and industry experts in Calgary at a variety of companies betting quite a bit on the demand continuing despite what the IEA is showing. But let's just discount this because Torture from HR thinks he is smarter than everyone.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by Leondros

But let's just discount this because Torture from HR thinks he is smarter than everyone.

lol. Street Pharmacist posts what the IEA and BP think, but yeah, this is just Torture from HR.

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by Torture

lol. Street Pharmacist posts what the IEA and BP think, but yeah, this is just Torture from HR.

I can add in the Pharmacist from Kamloops if you would like as well

All hyperbole aside, it is frustrating to see how the average Canadian constantly belittles these types of projects. We have seen everything from environmental concerns, First Nations concerns, municipal concerns and everything in-between hamper these projects. Now these are finally getting approved and we are trying to reduce their impact by making the "economics impact" argument? How about we stop shooting ourselves in the foot by hampering our ability to take advantage of our natural resources. We are one of the few countries who truly cannot get out of our own way and its become ingrained in our culture and the way Canadians in general behave. Because if we don't do this some other countries will where we cannot control the E, the S, or the G.

[Flames0910]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

I'm sure there are plenty of countries in Africa that will take nat gas. From an emissions perspective it's far better than what they are burning now.

Not sure on the economics of gas pipelines. There has to be someone on CP who works for TCE or Enbridge, who would know better. I can't imagine the economic life being any less than 50 years.

TCE's Coastal Gaslink project is already at nearly $15 billion and even before that overage it was one of the largest infrastructure projects in Canadian history but sure let's just build an even bigger, more complicated pipeline to [east coast, churchill] based on "not sure on the economics."

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by Flames0910

TCE's Coastal Gaslink project is already at nearly $15 billion and even before that overage it was one of the largest infrastructure projects in Canadian history but sure let's just build an even bigger, more complicated pipeline to [east coast, churchill] based on "not sure on the economics."

Not to mention the TMX overages as well - although that could be more attributed to corruption and issue with how the government is running the project rather than inflationary pressures.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Flames0910

TCE's Coastal Gaslink project is already at nearly $15 billion and even before that overage it was one of the largest infrastructure projects in Canadian history but sure let's just build an even bigger, more complicated pipeline to [east coast, churchill] based on "not sure on the economics."

You are mixing the colours and the whites.

I fail to see how Energy East is remotely comparable to CGL in terms of cost and/or complexity.

@Torture There are several pipelines in Russia that cross similar geography that a proposed route to Churchill would encounter.

My point in raising the Churchill option was a counterpoint to the Halifax or bust argument.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

@Torture There are several pipelines in Russia that cross similar geography that a proposed route to Churchill would encounter.

I'm aware of that and I didn't say it wasn't possible, it's just not likely to be economically feasible. We can barely maintain a railroad to Churchill and get basic staples to the grocery stores up there, but now we're going to ship a bunch of LNG and develop it into a massive arctic port?

[D as in David]

Would the economics for the McKenzie gas pipeline work now? I believe that's why Imperial Oil pulled out of it before.