Climate change and human responsibility

[Ozy_Flame]

Yeah retroactively removing their past carbon output is a great benchmark to achieve. If it's possible, that is a true carbon-neutral philosophy. Satya Nadella is doing amazing things with that company.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

The biggest issue with pumped hydro is geography. How many places have higher elevation areas to make lakes out of.


Saw a cool idea of cranes using a turbine to lift large concrete blocks with excess energy created during the day, and using the turbines to create electricity as the concrete lowers during times of need

Yup, every region is going to have it's own unique issues, advantages and technologies. One of the reasons why it's important to consider that when we deploy things like solar. Just becuase it works well in Saudi Arabia, doesn't mean it is the solution for us(just as an example, no raging on me!). But then we have lots of mountains, so maybe pumped hydro would be useful here. Though that comes with other environmental issues.

[Bownesian]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

The biggest issue with pumped hydro is geography. How many places have higher elevation areas to make lakes out of.


Saw a cool idea of cranes using a turbine to lift large concrete blocks with excess energy created during the day, and using the turbines to create electricity as the concrete lowers during times of need

Yeah, our (Alberta's) current max hydro capacity is 1781 MW (and use 6 times as much) so again there's a big scale problem if we are counting on pumped hydro.

[CalgaryFan1988]

Spoiler!

Not sure if this was posted before, but I thought some may be interested in viewing.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I think peaker plants can be shut down/turned up quickly. Natural Gas as load generation cannot be.

I may be wrong though

Pretty sure you are correct.

Battery however is an even better peaker plant in terms of efficiency and cost savings. There is zero doubt in this regard.

People are getting WAY to caught up in the whole 'it would take this amount of storage and solar/wind to provide power for the whole grid' without realizing that we are talking about two applications here.

Standard power production
Peak power production management

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Azure

Pretty sure you are correct.

Battery however is an even better peaker plant in terms of efficiency and cost savings. There is zero doubt in this regard.

People are getting WAY to caught up in the whole 'it would take this amount of storage and solar/wind to provide power for the whole grid' without realizing that we are talking about two applications here.

Standard power production
Peak power production management

Most of my concerns weren't around the whole grid, it was about how we have a production deficit currently, and how to cover for that, and that batteries couldn't possibly fill that roll, as we are up to 5 days now of 1000MW deficit. Which, coincidentally, is around what we have in wind capacity that isn't doing anything right now.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

Green energy is directly tied to battery advancements, and that's why it isnt feasible right now.

The alternative is to leave this -40C icebox and live somewhere that we dont have to spend thousands on energy and instead move to a climate where humans were actually intended to flourish.

Isn't feasible in Canada, or not feasible at all?

Looking at the overall renewable energy capacity investment figures for 2019, wind (onshore and offshore) led the way with $138.2 billion globally, up 6%. Solar was close behind, at $131.1 billion, down 3%. Falling capital costs in wind and solar meant that the two combined are likely to have seen around 180 gigawatts added last year, up some 20GW on 2018.

https://about.bnef.com/blog/late-sur...overtake-2018/

If you go do a bit of research on investment in fossil fuel power production plant, you'll quickly notice that in North America alone we are not far away from seeing a massive reduction in coal, a serious reduction in natural gas, and more massive growth in the renewable sector.

Clearly the market, and the people engineering these plants and the grids behind them disagree with what you are saying here.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Yeah retroactively removing their past carbon output is a great benchmark to achieve. If it's possible, that is a true carbon-neutral philosophy. Satya Nadella is doing amazing things with that company.

It is very possible to achieve and a good way for them to not only do the right thing but to get a tax write off.

They could easily lobby the government to give them tax breaks in exchange for reducing their net carbon output.

Also, because of all the real estate work they do, approving CLT projects would make a massive difference and would encourage research and investment to expand overall CLT use.

Similar to what Walmart is doing with their new headquarters.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by Azure

Isn't feasible in Canada, or not feasible at all?



https://about.bnef.com/blog/late-sur...overtake-2018/

If you go do a bit of research on investment in fossil fuel power production plant, you'll quickly notice that in North America alone we are not far away from seeing a massive reduction in coal, a serious reduction in natural gas, and more massive growth in the renewable sector.

Clearly the market, and the people engineering these plants and the grids behind them disagree with what you are saying here.

Yes we are spending a ton on renewables, but the amount we are investing isnt even keeping up with demand. Without obscene amounts of money going into renewables, they will not keep up.

"Despite recent progress, the expected output from low-carbon power investments is not keeping pace with demand growth."

"Across all regions, a boost in generation spending would be needed to support energy transitions, particularly in low-carbon sources"

Coal going away is a really good thing, its inefficient and slow to start up generation. To simplify the problem to coal go down renewables go up doesn't take into account demand or forecasted demand growth. With renewables, especially in Alberta, running at quite honestly pathetic efficiencies, they are nothing more than feel good platitudes.

https://www.iea.org/reports/world-en...9/power-sector

[Fuzz]

With coal going away in 2030 in Alberta, are they replacing 100% of that capacity with gas? is there a solid plan here, or are they winging it and hoping corporations see value in building plants? Or will we lose all our coal generation, and only have it replaced with renewables? I haven't actually seen what the plan is.

[Azure]

It would be pretty dumb to not replace it with gas considering not only the low cost, but also the fact that Alberta produced natural gas is significantly more cleaner for the environment than almost anyone else's.

I was actually surprised to not see more gas plants being built.

I also don't like that people focus on one year of renewable growth and assume that it can't possibly keep up with demand. Like I mentioned in an earlier post, two big things are happening right now. Windmills are becoming bigger and more capable of producing higher power rates from a single unit, and solar is becoming more efficient per week almost. Continued investment into both sectors should see both those things get better.

Also, let us not forget about hydro. Some big hydro projects going up in Manitoba & Ontario in the future which helps ensure Canada's continued dominance in the renewable field (though not in the sexy solar sector). With better inter-provincial trade, we should also see increased contracts to sell hydro between provinces. I believe Manitoba & Sask are both looking at significant deals right now.

From the end of 2019.

SWIFT CURRENT — SaskPower is exploring options to transfer as much as 1,000 megawatts of electricity from Manitoba Hydro for the year 2030 and beyond.

That’s enough to power roughly a million homes.

Dustin Duncan, minister responsible for SaskPower, said the idea remains “hypothetical at this point.”

He noted that doing so would require extremely expensive infrastructure upgrades.

“At a minimum, we’re talking in the billions, just on the infrastructure to import, to be able to take that amount of power,” he said Friday.

“That doesn’t include the cost to buy that power over a 30-year contract. So we would be into billions and billions and billions of dollars.”

The most cost-effective option for transferring that much power would require high-voltage transmission lines running from Winnipeg to Regina, according to a joint study published by SaskPower and Manitoba Hydro last month.

That option would cost roughly $1.8 billion. Other options run far higher, reaching as much as $3 billion.

https://leaderpost.com/news/saskatch...manitoba-hydro

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by Flames0910

I think what's really interesting here is the line about removing their historical carbon emissions. Really cool.

I thought I read in another article that a majority of carbon reduction was done by buying carbon offsets.

Which many view as a paper exercise rather than tangible outcome.

Glad to hear about the fund but $1 billion while good is paltry for a company of their size.

Anyways I am pretty cynical when companies do stuff like this. Hopefully I am wrong on the carbon tax credits and they are actually doing more than a PR stunt.

[PaperBagger'14]

Grid expansion in terms of adding additional provincial and out of country power line ties is a very good thing for everyone. AB currently has ties with BC, Sask and Montana. This provides 2 very important functions, number one being increased reliability of electricity.

The secondary function being that when these ties are closed, grids are less susceptible to voltage/frequency dips with the loss of a generator or the increase in demand. It's a great thing that's happening.

Edit: I would be very hesitant for AB to look at importing energy from other provinces, namely Ontario and possibly Quebec. This has more to do with the political leverage we would be giving them and not the capacity/green energy issue. Ideally an Albertan made green solution or nuclear power will be developed.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

I thought I read in another article that a majority of carbon reduction was done by buying carbon offsets.

Which many view as a paper exercise rather than tangible outcome.

Glad to hear about the fund but $1 billion while good is paltry for a company of their size.

Anyways I am pretty cynical when companies do stuff like this. Hopefully I am wrong on the carbon tax credits and they are actually doing more than a PR stunt.

Carbon offsets are stupid.

Companies should encouraged to spend profits on reducing their carbon footprint and helping develop new methods to remove carbon from the atmosphere.

A company like Microsoft has the resources and money to make a significant difference in the research of using CLT in buildings as they routinely build out their office space. Something like that will go much further than years of small investments to try and create a bigger market.

Sort of like this.

CONWAY, Ark. - Canadian mass timber manufacturer and cross-laminated timber (CLT) pioneer Structurlam will invest $90 million into its first U.S. production facility in Arkansas. Around 130 new jobs will be created.

“The mid-rise commercial and residential building industry is experiencing a revolution brought on by the rise of mass timber building solutions,” Hardy Wentzel, chief executive officer of Structurlam said in a news release. “At Structurlam, we’re transforming wood, one of nature’s most renewable resources, into a greener, more cost-effective, and aesthetically-pleasing alternative to concrete and steel.”

Structurlam will upgrade an 288,000-square-foot facility that was initially built to make steel fasteners for Nucor Steel. The transformation will begin next month. The plant will be ready for operation in 2021.

The facility's first customer will be Walmart, which will use 1.1 million cubic feet of CLT to build a brand new headquarters in the nearby Bentonville.

https://www.woodworkingnetwork.com/n...way-90-million

Anyone who understands even a little bit about the problem we're dealing with (not Greta) knows that CLT is a very important part of a carbon free and even carbon removal future.

[Mass_nerder]

Canada is super behind in CLT production vs. Europe.
We have so much raw material, but like our oil sector, our forestry industry is built on resource extraction and not processing.
For CLT (or other mass timber products) to really become viable, Canada (and North America in general) needs to remove that bottle neck.

I believe Canada's construction industry makes up something like 12% of all Canada's GHG emissions, which is pretty significant, so more CLT/LVL/DLT etc...the better.

[TheIronMaiden]

Very cool!

The Travers Solar Energy Project, to be one of the world’s largest, will feature 1.5 million panels set amid grazing land. It should begin taking shape in the middle of this year and be completed in late 2021, he said.

It’s projected to produce 400 MW (megawatts) of electricity with the potential of powering 100,000 homes and creating 500 full-time jobs during construction. The next-largest solar farm is in Ontario, with a capacity of 100 MW.

https://calgaryherald.com/business/l...-solar-project

[Fuzz]

So, peak 400MW? What's that average to over 24 hours over a year?

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

So, peak 400MW? What's that average to over 24 hours over a year?

They're claiming 800 GWh in annual generation, so about 23% capacity factor or 91 MW.

[Fuzz]

Thanks, my quick number came to 75 MW.

[troutman]

NOVA has a really interesting two hour show about climate change on earth, ancient and today:

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/polar-extremes/

They explain very well how we can determine what climates were like in the past.

Includes a visit to a spectacular ice cave in the Alberta rockies.