The Climate Change Discussion Thread

[jawagord]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Wow you are thick. I'm not trying to directly compare the output of these plants, just the price and construction timeline. With the price per kWh of solar, you can start to add storage to get to hydro levels of reliability, at least short term.

Either way, fossil fuels have been left in the dust. Economics at work, as predicted by myself and others in this very thread.

Really Warren the only thing you've shown us is a large solar array can be built faster in Abu Dhabi than a Hydroelectric dam in BC. Is that new news? If it is, thanks for the revelation, I'm sure the BC NDP and BC Hydro will be all over it.

FYI you can build a gas turbine power plant in Abu Dhabi faster than you can build a Hydroelectric dam in BC.

FYI again, you can build a nuclear power plant in Abu Dhabi faster than you can build a Hydroelectric dam in BC.

Keep comparing apples to watermelons, Warren. Your insight is so far ahead of the rest of us we think you are behind!

The 1,600MW Shuweihat S3 combined cycle power plant is located at Ruwais in the emirate of Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (UAE).

Construction of the gas-fired power plant started in 2011 and the first gas turbine was ignited in July 2013. The project started commercial operations in August 2014.

The AED 5.5bn ($1.5bn) project is the third Shuweihat plant following the 1,500MW Shuweihat S1 and Shuweihat S2 combined cycle power plants, which have been operational since 2004 and 2011, respectively.

https://www.power-technology.com/pro...ant-abu-dhabi/

Nawah Energy Company, a joint venture between ENEC and KEPCO, is the operator of the plant, which will include four units.

The ground-breaking ceremony for the $32bn project, which will include four units of 1,400MW each, was held in March 2011.

The construction of unit 1 began in July 2012, following the receipt of a construction licence from the Federal Authority of Nuclear Regulation (FANR). The construction was completed in May 2018.

https://www.power-technology.com/pro...ant-abu-dhabi/

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by jawagord

Really Warren the only thing you've shown us is a large solar array can be built faster in Abu Dhabi than a Hydroelectric dam in BC. Is that new news? If it is, thanks for the revelation, I'm sure the BC NDP and BC Hydro will be all over it.

Cheaper is the more important part. It's about 5x cheaper for wholesale electricity.

Site C was simply a comparison for people who wouldn't understand how this Solar power project compares to something happening today, more locally.

This is the climate change thread.

Your posts about 10 year old projects are almost meaningless. As usual, climate deniers look to the past for inspiration.

[Truenorth00]

Gas plants might have a case for baseload. But gas peakers are getting killed by batteries. And all of that has happened in the last 3 years.

https://theenergymix.com/2018/11/16/...ttery-storage/

https://theenergymix.com/2019/04/03/...ggest-battery/

Here in Canada, the $5 billion Eglinton LRT line in Toronto was meant to have a small gas power plant. That got nixed for this:

https://blog.metrolinx.com/2019/07/3...stown-lrt/amp/

This is what really kicked off the trend:

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...cost-in-a-year

Like I said economics will drive this change. They've long favoured oil and gas. But that is changing and individuals, companies and governments are reacting accordingly.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

This is what really kicked off the trend:

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...cost-in-a-year

The battery made most of its money from the collapse of reliability and lack of reserve in the Australian system, caused by the retirement of old coal plants and trying to foolishly replace them with unreliable solar and wind.

In 2014 and 2015 when Australia still had some reserve of reliable generation, FCAS costs was about $20M/year. The last two years (when the battery was active), it has skyrocketed to nearly $200M/year as Australia faces emergencies every time it gets hot in the summer, forcing it to activate desperate measures such as diesel generators.



https://www.aer.gov.au/wholesale-mar...ts-by-services

Analysis so far shows the battery doesn't make much money off peaking and arbitrage:

As highlighted in the image, the battery earns revenue from energy market arbitrage on a “buy low, sell high” strategy. In simple terms (i.e. without going down the path of exploring revenue from derivatives) this is the underlying way that all storage facilities need to earn money in the energy market – because they do not, in-and-of-themselves generate energy.

Understanding that this battery has paid something between $200,000 and $400,000 each month to charge the battery – and yet rarely earned $500,000 in a month to discharge should help to reinforce the challenges in making this type of business model pay for a large capital investment….

http://www.wattclarity.com.au/articl...about-storage/

That's probably in part due to its large two-way losses:

Like I said economics will drive this change. They've long favoured oil and gas. But that is changing and individuals, companies and governments are reacting accordingly.

Dumb governments have been driving this change, it'll last only until electricity systems start collapsing or people are no longer willing to pay 30, 40c/kWh electricity like they do in Germany, Australia, California.

[Truenorth00]

I like how you decided to argue against one project and completely ignored the other examples. And that too could only argue against Tesla's early project, with prices only coming down substantially since then.

It's laughable that people think their opinion matters. Money doesn't care about your feelings. And batterification of power storage and electrification of transport is happening entirely because the business cases for it are there. It's going to be really entertaining as Amazon starts taking delivery of their Rivian delivery vehicles and everyone else discovers how much electrification can reduce delivery costs.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I like how you decided to argue against one project and completely ignored the other examples. And that too could only argue against Tesla's early project, with prices only coming down substantially since then.

Why shouldn't it be analyzed since it's "the one that kicked things off", and benefits by in one of the worst managed and expensive electric systems in the developed world?

Anyways, just because something benefits its asset owners or the utility company, doesn't meant it'll ever benefit the rate payer.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by accord1999

Why shouldn't it be analyzed since it's "the one that kicked things off"?

It's almost 3 years old and things change very quickly in this space.

Originally Posted by accord1999

Anyways, just because it benefits the asset owners or the utility company, doesn't meant it'll ever benefit the rate payer.

Now you're changing the goal posts. The free market will help that problem for the rate payer.

That's like saying gas fired, nuclear, hydro, and solar plants are equal if they are all supplying the same customer at the same price.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by accord1999

Why shouldn't it be analyzed since it's "the one that kicked things off", and benefits by in one of the worst managed and expensive electric systems in the developed world?

Anyways, just because something benefits its asset owners or the utility company, doesn't meant it'll ever benefit the rate payer.

We're here talking about climate change. Not ratepayers. Incidentally, if building a peaker plant was cheaper, utilities would be doing that. It's simply cheaper to have a large battery and to run baseload higher.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Now you're changing the goal posts. The free market will help that problem for the rate payer.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair

Our Prairie dwelling friends will never see this coming because they can't accept that their prosperity might legitimately be at stake.

The most important example I gave above was not that of the utilities in Australia, California and Florida. It was what Metrolinx was doing in Toronto. It shows that costs are scaling to smaller projects. They literally switched horses mid-race. Imagine how many small facilities like that would be replaced. And each facility sold drives demand for batteries only bringing down costs further accelerating the cycle.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Now you're changing the goal posts. The free market will help that problem for the rate payer.

How's that free market help out for German electricity prices?



Despite so-called record cheap prices for solar and wind, the poor consumer ends up paying more and more. At least Canadians aren't willing to put up with it, with the annihilation of the Ontario Liberal Party.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair

Indeed, that's why we have the shills of Green Energy shilling everywhere about how cheap it is, even when all evidence shows how expensive it is.

It was what Metrolinx was doing in Toronto. It shows that costs are scaling to smaller projects.

Let's see it in action first. Let's not forget, transit Agencies are famous for doing projects wrong.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by accord1999

Indeed, that's why we have the shills of Green Energy shilling everywhere about how cheap it is, even when all evidence shows how expensive it is.

When you're emotionally invested, facts can come across as "shilling".

Money is money. I've bought oil stocks when appropriate. I call it as I see it. But I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings.

Originally Posted by accord1999

Let's see it in action first. Let's not forget, transit Agencies are famous for doing projects wrong.

I would bet money the power storage and delivery will be more reliable than the transit line itself. It's great to see Canada actually leading the way on tech development. Other transit builders are now looking at the same idea.

[Truenorth00]

There's a great article here if anyone is interested in reading:

https://www.railjournal.com/in_depth...energy-storage

Rail electrification is picking up globally. Here in Canada, GO's $12B electrification project is going to break records domestically. Combined with grid level storage they line up perfectly to take advantage of reduced overnight demand while reducing costs, cutting emissions and boosting reliability. It's great when it's a win all around.

[jawagord]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I like how you decided to argue against one project and completely ignored the other examples. And that too could only argue against Tesla's early project, with prices only coming down substantially since then.

It's laughable that people think their opinion matters. Money doesn't care about your feelings. And batterification of power storage and electrification of transport is happening entirely because the business cases for it are there. It's going to be really entertaining as Amazon starts taking delivery of their Rivian delivery vehicles and everyone else discovers how much electrification can reduce delivery costs.

Sure TN, sure! Outside of pandering public utilities that can pass on the extra costs of large battery storage systems to the mass public, who is using these things? Pay me 10 grand and I’ll install a Tesla power wall in my garage, otherwise it’s a waste of money that will never recover it’s principle costs. Same goes for businesses, give them a big subsidy and they’ll install solar panels with battery back-ups, that doesn’t make it an economic good choice for society.

Electric vehicles powered by the grid have had niche applications for decades, so no doubt EV’s will continue to increase in use. But like the Montreal EV taxi company that went bankrupt last year, for many businesses the unlimited usability of a gas vehicle is more important to the business than low operating costs of a limited range EV that is unusable for hours every day because of recharging.

Metrolinxis planning to build a battery backup energy system in Mount Dennis for the Eglinton Crosstown, scrapping its initial plans for a natural gas plant.

The announcement came on March 28 at a news conference at the Mount Dennis construction site, after community members voiced their concerns about harmful emissions.

Del Duca couldn’t comment on how much the system would cost to build, but added the battery will charge during off-peak hours when hydro prices are cheaper, and distribute power throughout the day.

Rick Ciccarelli, executive member of the Mount Dennis Community Association (MDCA), has been one of many community members campaigning against the natural gas plant since it was proposed.
https://www.toronto.com/news-story/7...crosstown-lrt/

[jlousa]

This is my wheelhouse. Battery storage is a terrible and expensive bandaid. The best batteries on the market for this type of storage are the newer pure lead type. As they are stationary the weight size advantages of lithium don't offer a benefit. These batteries have a 10yr reliable lifespan. You could reduce capacity and go with a flooded battery with a 20yr life cycle since space now weight are not factors. Either way you are dealing with costs of millions in battery depreciation per year for a backup of this scale. Then you have the double conversion loses from AC to DC and then back to AC you will lose 10-15% off the bat and spend thousands of KW in cooling on top of that loss. As for

Electric trains connected directly to apower source is great idea, trains with batteries is stupid.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by jlousa

This is my wheelhouse. Battery storage is a terrible and expensive bandaid. The best batteries on the market for this type of storage are the newer pure lead type. As they are stationary the weight size advantages of lithium don't offer a benefit. These batteries have a 10yr reliable lifespan. You could reduce capacity and go with a flooded battery with a 20yr life cycle since space now weight are not factors. Either way you are dealing with costs of millions in battery depreciation per year for a backup of this scale. Then you have the double conversion loses from AC to DC and then back to AC you will lose 10-15% off the bat and spend thousands of KW in cooling on top of that loss. As for

Electric trains connected directly to apower source is great idea, trains with batteries is stupid.

For someone who has this in his wheelhouse, how do you not seem aware that the primary motivation for battery electric trains is for lines where the deployment of catenary has no business case? It's not usually being proposed for corridors with high frequency.

What diving electrification is quite simple. Falling cost of electrification (either through onboard batteries or overhead catenary), concerns over emissions (particularly near corridors seeing dozens or hundreds of trains per day), performance requirements (electric trains accelerate faster) and operating costs (electric trains are cheaper to operate and maintain). Most of this has been known for over a century. So hardly new ideas. The difference is improved tech reducing costs and changing the business case and increased urbanization creating the demand for higher frequency transit.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by accord1999

How's that free market help out for German electricity prices?

With or without externalities?

I think what climate change deniers struggle with is the idea that pollution now has a cost.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by accord1999

How's that free market help out for German electricity prices?

[img]https://www.cleanenergywire.org/site...?itok=g5GME7Vd[img]

Despite so-called record cheap prices for solar and wind, the poor consumer ends up paying more and more. At least Canadians aren't willing to put up with it, with the annihilation of the Ontario Liberal Party.

If the price of stopping climate change was higher electricity prices, even significantly, do you not believe it would be worth it?

Though it certainly doesn't have to be the case that less carbon intensive fuel sources are more expensive. Solar and wind are rapidly dropping in cost, if we can figure out some form of mass storage that can be built at scale then the case for fossil fuels goes away. And eventually, fusion, SMRs, or some other advanced technology will take over.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

There's a great article here if anyone is interested in reading:

https://www.railjournal.com/in_depth...energy-storage

Rail electrification is picking up globally. Here in Canada, GO's $12B electrification project is going to break records domestically. Combined with grid level storage they line up perfectly to take advantage of reduced overnight demand while reducing costs, cutting emissions and boosting reliability. It's great when it's a win all around.

I agree with you, however there is a disconnect with what is obviously true on paper and what happens in reality. Electrification of rail is such a no-brainer - it can be carbon free, it doesn't produce nasty diesel pollution, the trains are more reliable and more powerful. It's mature technology that we know how to build easily.

And yet... we just don't build it, even when it is obviously the thing to do. We drag our feet for years in places like Toronto as the costs to build developed technology spiral. It's not just here either. It makes economic sense for the majority of the UK rail network to be electrified, yet there will be 4 track intercity/commuter lines far busier than any in Canada that still don't have electrification. As far as I can tell, the richer a country gets, the worse they get at building infrastructure and it's a real problem as we get further and further behind, begging the question what the point of being rich is.

[Hackslack]

Irving Oil wants more Canadian crude for its Atlantic operations

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...rude-1.5549667

Irving Oil , the operator of the country's largest refinery, says it wants to use more Canadian crude during the current economic crisis and has applied to use foreign tanker ships in order to get the oil to its operations in New Brunswick.

In the application, written in mid-April, Irving says it is in discussions with Western Canadian crude producers for "the prompt acquisition" of crude oil from B.C. for immediate delivery to its refinery through the Panama Canal.

Too bad there wasn't a multi-billion dollar private sector infrastructure investment that would bring western crude to the east coast, instead, the market is now forcing them to ship oil via tankers around the whole western hemisphere - not good for our climate. This would likely result in even more tankers sailing the salish sea. All in all, if their applications are approved, and tankers start sailing, the blocking of energy east pipeline is backfiring... environmentalists, given the choice between shipping oil via pipeline versus tanker, surely they would opt for pipeline considering the significantly higher carbon footprint of shipping oil via tankers around both Americas.

Anyway, good to see Canadians coming together at least to help spur the economy and Canada's largest export.