The Energy Transition and technologies

[CaptainCrunch]

Climate tax the hell out of countries that want to sell goods in Canada but have a bad environmental record. Tell them if they buy our carbon capture and other green tech they can get climate tax credits.


Take the money from the tax and put it in an innovation fund, and to reduce the tax burden on Canadians.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by guzzy

I have been saying for years that carbon tax and climate policy will do very little towards solving, or even reducing climate change. It will be capitalism and the private sector (probably heavily backed by public money) that will do the most. We will find a way to weasel out of this and lots of people will make money doing so.

Climate policy today exists, at least partially, so ideological people can make lots of money for them and their friends (Al Gore, Justin Trudeau and company, etc). While they are profiting, they are also creating awareness and using some of the public money towards research and real solutions.

Corporations wouldn't do anything without climate policy though. Without incentives(or disincentives) it would go against corporate principles to spend money on that which does not generate profit. I think the system is working as it should. Governments create policy for the greater good, and the capitalist world creates solutions. When problems get very bad, governments may need to offer incentives and boosts(such as research funding) to kick start some solutions.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Climate tax the hell out of countries that want to sell goods in Canada but have a bad environmental record. Tell them if they buy our carbon capture and other green tech they can get climate tax credits.

Take the money from the tax and put it in an innovation fund, and to reduce the tax burden on Canadians.

I think we will get to that point, but if you did it now, it would just make everything more expensive or inaccessible for Canadians.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by guzzy

I have been saying for years that carbon tax and climate policy will do very little towards solving, or even reducing climate change. It will be capitalism and the private sector (probably heavily backed by public money) that will do the most. We will find a way to weasel out of this and lots of people will make money doing so.

Climate policy today exists, at least partially, so ideological people can make lots of money for them and their friends (Al Gore, Justin Trudeau and company, etc). While they are profiting, they are also creating awareness and using some of the public money towards research and real solutions.

The carbon tax is probably the best signal for the private sector to do something.

Big market guys really don't know much about prices.

[Table 5]

Nuclear's momentum continues to build, as it looks like even California might finally be considering reversing its plan to shut down its last nuclear power plant, Diablo Canyon.

It's pretty asinine to consider shutting it down in the first place, considering this that this is a state that suffers from some of the highest energy prices and imposes rolling blackouts. Besides having a pretty badass name, Diablo Canyon provides 6% of the state's energy (and 23% of it's carbon-free energy).

https://twitter.com/user/status/1520056931469070336

Nuclear supporters say closing plants such as Diablo would make it far more difficult to achieve President Biden’s goal of 100% clean energy by 2035, and to mostly eliminate planet-warming emissions by midcentury — which is necessary to avert the worst impacts of climate change, including more dangerous heat waves, wildfires and floods, according to scientists.

Nuclear plants are America’s largest source of climate-friendly power, generating 19% of the country’s electricity last year. That’s almost as much as solar panels, wind turbines, hydropower dams and all other zero-carbon energy sources combined.

[Azure]

Someone break down the benefits of Europe rapidly transitioning to heat pumps in the next year as if I'm a 5 year old.

And then also explain to me why it hasn't already happened.

You can get heat pump based hot water heaters that are insanely efficient. Nevermind heat pumps for everything else.

[opendoor]

There are numerous benefits, but it's not something that can happen in a year. It's hard enough in North America where we largely have the infrastructure in place (i.e. ductwork in buildings) and have a history of using electricity for heat (which means we generally have good electrical service to buildings). It's a lot different in Europe where they use gas boilers and radiators and their buildings aren't really set up for forced air. Ductless heat pumps are easier to retrofit, but they come with their own issues.

As for why it hasn't happened before now, it's the same reason that no one in Alberta uses heat pumps; they're more expensive to run in a colder climate when gas is cheap. And in places where electricity is largely produced by fossil fuels, there isn't a lot of environmental benefit either. And they're pretty expensive to install (particularly if you're talking about replacing a perfectly good gas system).

Heat pumps are amazing in places where the electricity is mostly low-carbon and relatively inexpensive. I heat and cool my house in BC for a little over $400 a year in electricity with 2 heat pumps (about 3,500 kWh at an average of $0.12/kWh). But in a place like Germany where electricity is ~$0.43/kWh, then the math changes a fair bit.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Azure

Someone break down the benefits of Europe rapidly transitioning to heat pumps in the next year as if I'm a 5 year old.

And then also explain to me why it hasn't already happened.

You can get heat pump based hot water heaters that are insanely efficient. Nevermind heat pumps for everything else.

The marginal kW of electricity in Europe is produced using German thermal coal. It's extremely dirty and extremely expensive.

So the reason it hasn't happened yet is political hysteria around using nuclear power as a baseload energy source. If that changes heat pumps will become a plausible choice.

[opendoor]

Nuclear is still expensive though, so that's not going to solve the cost issue. France's electricity is almost 3/4 nuclear, but they're still paying about $0.28 CAD/kWh for residential electricity. And Belgium is 40% nuclear and they pay over $0.40 CAD/kWh. Meanwhile the Netherlands is almost totally fossil fuels (mix of gas and coal), and they pay an average of $0.19 CAD/kWh.

People seem to blame Germany's expensive power on renewables, but their electricity has always been expensive. They were paying €0.20/kWh nearly 20 years ago (which is equivalent to €0.25 today) when they had very little renewable energy production, and now they're paying €0.32. Even if their rates just rose with inflation, they'd still have the 6th most expensive electricity among the 39 countries in Europe (as opposed to #2 right now).

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Azure

Someone break down the benefits of Europe rapidly transitioning to heat pumps in the next year as if I'm a 5 year old.

And then also explain to me why it hasn't already happened.

You can get heat pump based hot water heaters that are insanely efficient. Nevermind heat pumps for everything else.

The issue is Europe only has a fraction of the peak electricity generation capacity needed to convert from NG heating to electrical in the winter, even with heat pumps with high COP.

For just the UK, even an optimistic study says it will need about 170 GW of electricity to meet peak heating demand.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...01421518307249

Currently with mostly NG heating, the UK's electricity demand peaks at around 40-45 GW during the winter.

https://gridwatch.co.uk/

[opendoor]

One criticism I'd have with that study is that it seems to presume that hourly demand for heat would be similar between heat pumps and gas furnaces, but that's not a given because they work differently. With a gas furnace, you might set the temperature back at night or during the day to save energy, and then it comes on full blast in the morning or evening to make up the temperature, leading to the huge spikes in those times.

Heat pumps don't really work that way, and there usually isn't much benefit to setting the temperature back for shorter periods of time, nor do they have huge peak power consumption. So the usage would be much smoother (and if anything, higher at night when the temperatures are colder). So if a region was heating with heat pumps, the peaks would likely be a fair bit lower.

I've monitored my heat pumps' electricity usage when I've been away for several weeks at a time (which removes virtually all non-heating electrical usage), and the flatness of the curve is crazy:

[blender]

Originally Posted by opendoor

One criticism I'd have with that study is that it seems to presume that hourly demand for heat would be similar between heat pumps and gas furnaces, but that's not a given because they work differently. With a gas furnace, you might set the temperature back at night or during the day to save energy, and then it comes on full blast in the morning or evening to make up the temperature, leading to the huge spikes in those times.

Heat pumps don't really work that way, and there usually isn't much benefit to setting the temperature back for shorter periods of time, nor do they have huge peak power consumption. So the usage would be much smoother (and if anything, higher at night when the temperatures are colder). So if a region was heating with heat pumps, the peaks would likely be a fair bit lower.

I've monitored my heat pumps' electricity usage when I've been away for several weeks at a time (which removes virtually all non-heating electrical usage), and the flatness of the curve is crazy:

This is a very good point.
Additionally many heat pumps in North America happen to be oversized for the space they are serving which leads to a start-up/shut-down cycle that repeats and wastes energy rather than the desirable operation that your graph represents.

If anyone is thinking heat pump, be sure get it sized properly for the need it is serving.

[#-3]

Was thinking of buying an AC unit after suffering last summer, after looking at this conversation about heat pumps, I read they'd work just as well for cooling and only cost marginally more, and you would see a drop in monthly heating cost with them. Also heard Calgary is too cold for them to be reliable on the coldest days.

Anyone have experience?

Would a duel system where my existing furnace just jumps in for short periods when a heat pump isn't keeping up?

Assuming the grid keeps getting greener (because I think that's a fairly safe assumption ), would running the heat pump for 70% of my heating in the winter offset the extra usage I would create by adding cooling.

poke holes in this thinking.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by #-3

Was thinking of buying an AC unit after suffering last summer, after looking at this conversation about heat pumps, I read they'd work just as well for cooling and only cost marginally more, and you would see a drop in monthly heating cost with them. Also heard Calgary is too cold for them to be reliable on the coldest days.

Here's a data sheet on the heating capability and COP of one of the better known heat pump marketed for Canadian winters, the Mitsubishi Zuba Central:

Assuming the grid keeps getting greener (because I think that's a fairly safe assumption ), would running the heat pump for 70% of my heating in the winter offset the extra usage I would create by adding cooling.

The coldest periods in Alberta typically correlate with weak wind. More than likely, natural gas will be burning in residential furnace or in a power plant gas turbine to produce electricity.

[Fuzz]

I just checked my furnace in a 1000 sqft bungalow, it's 60 000 BTU. In -20 it's running fairly often, and if I turn it down to 16 when out, it needs a good hour to heat up the house. So with only 34 000 btu at -20, I suspect it could not keep up. So I can't see it working in a larger house, and in mine I suspect I'd need supplemental heating below -10.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I just checked my furnace in a 1000 sqft bungalow, it's 60 000 BTU. In -20 it's running fairly often, and if I turn it down to 16 when out, it needs a good hour to heat up the house. So with only 34 000 btu at -20, I suspect it could not keep up. So I can't see it working in a larger house, and in mine I suspect I'd need supplemental heating below -10.

Heat pumps don't really make a lot of sense in a climate like Calgary's given how the electricity is generated.

That said, the specs listed above are for a 36K BTU-rated heat pump, so it's not surprising that it wouldn't be able to heat as well as a 60K BTU furnace. If you had 60K in heat pump capacity, it'd heat the space just fine. And heat pumps are also most efficient when they're running at a lower than maximum output, so those COP numbers above are understated compared to likely real-world use.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by #-3

Was thinking of buying an AC unit after suffering last summer, after looking at this conversation about heat pumps, I read they'd work just as well for cooling and only cost marginally more, and you would see a drop in monthly heating cost with them. Also heard Calgary is too cold for them to be reliable on the coldest days.

Anyone have experience?

Would a duel system where my existing furnace just jumps in for short periods when a heat pump isn't keeping up?

Assuming the grid keeps getting greener (because I think that's a fairly safe assumption ), would running the heat pump for 70% of my heating in the winter offset the extra usage I would create by adding cooling.

poke holes in this thinking.

A heat pump will be much more expensive to run than a gas furnace in Alberta. And until the grid has more low-carbon sources, it'll likely generate more emissions as well. Using gas to produce electricity isn't all that efficient, so you're losing a lot of energy vs. just burning it for heat even with the efficiency of a heat pump.

Even in coastal BC, with much milder weather and cheaper electricity, good heat pumps are just basically at par for heating costs compared to a modern gas furnace. However, the reduction in carbon emissions is significant given that almost all the power is generated by hydro. That's not the case in Alberta, where using a heat pump is basically equivalent to using a generator to produce electricity and then using that electricity for heat.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by opendoor

A heat pump will be much more expensive to run than a gas furnace in Alberta. And until the grid has more low-carbon sources, it'll likely generate more emissions as well. Using gas to produce electricity isn't all that efficient, so you're losing a lot of energy vs. just burning it for heat even with the efficiency of a heat pump.

Even in coastal BC, with much milder weather and cheaper electricity, good heat pumps are just basically at par for heating costs compared to a modern gas furnace. However, the reduction in carbon emissions is significant given that almost all the power is generated by hydro. That's not the case in Alberta, where using a heat pump is basically equivalent to using a generator to produce electricity and then using that electricity for heat.

Fair enough, I was just considering how to weight it, if we'e going to blow the money on an AC unit anyways, and if a Duel Fuel option is something thats used in places, having both a heat pump and a gas furnace installed.

I do think Albertas grid is greening pretty fast. I know we are years ahead of schedule on Coal phase out. 3 years ago we had 8 left, now we only have 2. We also this year have the largest solar installation in the country opening. So generally from a "green" prospective as a consumer, I think it's good to electrify even if your energy isn't cleaner, because it's then possible for the market to make your usage cleaner, while if you buy a combustion product the market can't correct that half way through it's life.

[opendoor]

It really comes down to what you're trying to achieve. If it's economic, it's going to be hard to make a case for running a heat pump vs. a gas furnace in Alberta unless gas prices spike significantly (but then your electricity rates will also likely be higher).

If it's environmental, then there might be a case, at least in the longer term. To produce a kWh of heat, a 95% efficient gas furnace emits about 195 grams of CO2. I don't know Alberta's current emissions from electricity, but in 2019 it was 620 grams per kWh. So just to break even on emissions, you'd have to have a COP of a little over 3, which would be tough to achieve in Alberta's climate.

Whereas in somewhere like BC, electricity generation only produces about 18 grams of CO2 per kWh. So at a COP of 3 (easily achievable for most people in BC), a heat pump produces about 3% the emissions that a gas furnace does. And in somewhere like Manitoba whose electricity is essentially emission free (1.2 grams of CO2 per kWh), a gas furnace would produce over 300x the emissions of a lower efficiency heat pump with a COP of 2.

[bootsnixon]

For people more people more knowledgeable than me, what reasons are there for me not to get excited about this closed loop geothermal? Beyond just the expense of it, is it durability and life span of casings at high temps? Why shouldn't I get excited about this for the Alberta oil and gas industry and clean energy in general?

Here are a couple of videos about closed loop, deep well geothermal electricity generation and Eavor Technologies, a Calgary based company working in this field.


Dummied down video from Two Bit Da Vinci:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jzXonyL6PM

Slightly more technical video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2P2stuQ_KY