The Great Canadian Energy/Power Thread

[ericmacm]

I wanted to make a thread for discussion on our power generation and energy sectors in Canada. Our power generation and energy sectors are both highly important to our economy, as we heavily export both electricity and fossil fuels to the US. I know power generation and energy projects are very highly politicized in this country and everyone has differing opinions, so please try and keep these discussions civil.

Figured I would start the thread off with a breakdown of power generation types by each province/territory, found on the Canadian Energy Regulator site:

PEI - Imports base load from NB, but generates wind for int/peak load.


Nova Scotia - Heavy usage of coal/coke base load, with a mix of others for int/peak load.


Newfoundland & Labrador - Mostly hydro for all loads with some others for int/peak loads.


New Brunswick - Mix of nuclear, hydro, and coal/coke base load, with natural gas and wind for int/peak loads.


Quebec - Almost exclusively hydro for all loads, with some wind.


Ontario - Nuclear and hydro base load, with wind, nat gas, and solar for int/peak loads:


Manitoba - Almost exclusively hydro for all loads, with some wind.


Saskatchewan - Heavy usage of nat gas and coal/coke for all loads, with significant hydro and wind.


Alberta - Heavy usage of nat gas and coal/coke for all loads, with some wind.


British Columbia - Almost exclusively hydro for all loads, with some biomass generation.


Nunavut - No power grid, diesel for isolated community power and heating.


Northwest Territories - Some small hydro and nat gas developments, diesel for isolated community power and heating.


Yukon - Small hydro developments, diesel for isolated community power and heating.

[Truenorth00]

I've always wondered if Canada could be self-sufficient on Hydro. Could Quebec and NFLD make enough for Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Ontario. And Manitoba and BC, enough for Saskatchewan and Alberta?

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I've always wondered if Canada could be self-sufficient on Hydro. Could Quebec and NFLD make enough for Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Ontario. And Manitoba and BC, enough for Saskatchewan and Alberta?

Atlantic Canada is leery of relying on Quebec for power due to the highway robbery that happened in the past (not just with power but also railways and pretty much any regional service managed out of Quebec or Ontario).

There is an undersea transmission cable from NL to NS that was completed recently. But it has a 500 MW capacity while NS has 3 GW or so of generating capacity. Apparently NS is exporting coal-generated power to NL via the cable, presumably a temporary plan until Muskrat Falls is completed.

Strangely there are also plans for underwater transmission cables from NB or NS to MA to bypass other states that might fight the construction or interfere with the transmission. Another sign that this has more to do with politics or rent-seeking than technological requirements. If not for the politics I think North America would mostly be on nuclear and hydro with a mix of some other renewables.

[ericmacm]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I've always wondered if Canada could be self-sufficient on Hydro. Could Quebec and NFLD make enough for Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Ontario. And Manitoba and BC, enough for Saskatchewan and Alberta?

In theory, it is possible. There are significant improvements happening in cross-province transmission, such as the Maritime Transmission Link (Nova Scotia to Newfoundland, completed 2018), the Labrador-Island Transmission Link (Newfoundland to Labrador, completed 2018), and the Birtle Transmission Link (Manitoba to Saskatchewan, scheduled for completion 2021), all of which will improve access to hydro power for the provinces that don't have it.

Alberta is an interesting case. It does have some transmission tie-ins with British Columbia, and in the past, the two were talking about a joint transmission-pipeline corridor for BC's Site C dam, where Alberta would buy power, and run Northern Gateway (now cancelled) along the transmission corridor to BC's coast for oil export. I am doubtful BC would be able to supply Alberta's energy needs fully on hydro, though. Nuclear is a much better option for cleaning emissions in Alberta.

[Truenorth00]

Canada could, in theory, have one of the cleanest grids in the works while electrifying everything. We have enough hydro potential alone I would think to do this.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Canada could, in theory, have one of the cleanest grids in the works while electrifying everything. We have enough hydro potential alone I would think to do this.

If we wanted to be carbon neutral, the first thing we could do is to replace all fossil fuel plants with nuclear. That would allow some time to build up the wind, solar and hydro, as well as the cross grid transmission lines. You cannot just feed power fro Quebec to Alberta.

The problem is that everyone is scared of nuclear because they do not understand the realities. Both Chernobyl and Fukushima were old plants at the time of their accidents. Also, the reactors Canada uses - CANDU - are designed to fail safe.

Sadly, too many politicians and citizens want a quick change.

[ericmacm]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

If we wanted to be carbon neutral, the first thing we could do is to replace all fossil fuel plants with nuclear. That would allow some time to build up the wind, solar and hydro, as well as the cross grid transmission lines. You cannot just feed power fro Quebec to Alberta.

The problem is that everyone is scared of nuclear because they do not understand the realities. Both Chernobyl and Fukushima were old plants at the time of their accidents. Also, the reactors Canada uses - CANDU - are designed to fail safe.

Sadly, too many politicians and citizens want a quick change.

Agreed, nuclear is the answer that nobody wants to acknowledge. There is no feasible way yet to provide a stable baseload for a power grid using wind or solar. Either you have to use hydro, fossil fuels, or nuclear. Considering the vast environmental impact that hydro has, through flooding and the complete changing of ecosystems for reservoir creation, nuclear is the smallest footprint option by a long shot.

One nuclear plant close to the size of Bruce in Alberta could basically solve the entire coal/gas plant problem in the west. Adding some more full-size reactors at Point Lepreau in New Brunswick could eliminate the coal/gas plants in Atlantic Canada. However, this is not the solution people want, unfortunately.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by ericmacm

Agreed, nuclear is the answer that nobody wants to acknowledge. There is no feasible way yet to provide a stable baseload for a power grid using wind or solar. Either you have to use hydro, fossil fuels, or nuclear. Considering the vast environmental impact that hydro has, through flooding and the complete changing of ecosystems for reservoir creation, nuclear is the smallest footprint option by a long shot.

One nuclear plant close to the size of Bruce in Alberta could basically solve the entire coal/gas plant problem in the west.

I totally agree with what you state except that " nuclear is the answer nobody wants to acknowledge". I think the vast majority of Canadians have no problem with nuclear except perhaps in BC where people may be concerned due to a much higher threat of an earthquake.

The people that are the most against nuclear are, unfortunately, also the biggest mouth pieces and get the most air time, environmentalists. David Suzuki is of course the prime hypocrite in this regard. Last month Seamus O'Reilly stated that nuclear was essential for Canada to switch over to a hydrogen economy and meet net-zero by 2050. When he said it Suzuki's response was "I want to puke".

So many irresponsible environmentalist think the whole country can run on wind and solar. Of course you won't see Suzuki pushing for windmill farms in his tony Westside Vancouver neighbourhood.

These anti-nuclear environmentalists can also be blamed {which they know but will never admit} for much of our continued use of coal-fired electrical plants both here and especially in the US. Nuclear was expanding rapidly in the 70s until Three Mile Island and the environmentalist brought it to a screeching halt. This resulted in the delay and cancellation of the planned shut down of scores of highly polluting coal-fired plants.

It will be the environmentalists who will be the biggest hurdle to cross in order to bring out net-zero by 2050 due to their truly neurotic fear of nuclear.

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

If we wanted to be carbon neutral, the first thing we could do is to replace all fossil fuel plants with nuclear. That would allow some time to build up the wind, solar and hydro, as well as the cross grid transmission lines. You cannot just feed power fro Quebec to Alberta.

The problem is that everyone is scared of nuclear because they do not understand the realities. Both Chernobyl and Fukushima were old plants at the time of their accidents. Also, the reactors Canada uses - CANDU - are designed to fail safe.

Sadly, too many politicians and citizens want a quick change.

I've finally gotten the motivation to start watching this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHPp458m1cs
Unfortunately, we are now in an era where people view the government with extreme suspicion too.

[ericmacm]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

I've finally gotten the motivation to start watching this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHPp458m1cs
Unfortunately, we are now in an era where people view the government with extreme suspicion too.

I would also recommend the channel Illinois Energy Prof, which goes into all things nuclear, including the economics of reactors, different types of reactors, fuel types, radiation physics, etc. Nuclear power is not as remotely as scary once you learn how they work and how they fail.

Agreed, and it's not just the government either, it's the trained professionals behind these projects that are unfortunately losing the trust of the public, thanks to sensationalist and agenda-driven media.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Unfortunately, we are now in an era where people view the government with extreme suspicion too.

Um.... this is the Canadian sub-forum not the US sub-forum. It's important, as Canadians, to keep US bullsh*t from infecting Canada. What applies in the US does not necessarily apply here.

[accord1999]

Alberta and Saskatchewan would need the equivalent of a Three Gorges to be powered by Hydro.



Given how much trouble BC is having with Site C, 1/16th of the size of Three Gorges, and the opposition that deferred Quebec's Great Whale Project in the 90s (which will only be that much greater now) I see no reason to think Canada today could ever build that much Hydro today.

[ericmacm]

A $22B, privately-funded Alberta-Alaska rail corridor, A2A Rail, will soon be approved in the United States at the federal level. This rail line will predominantly be used for the exporting of oil (among other things), and connect Alaska (Anchorage) to Alberta (Fort McMurray), passing through Yukon and Northern BC. It will carry twin tracks the full way through.

There is still a long way to go, starting with environmental assessments in all 3 provinces/territories, but there is progress being made. Engineering and surveying is currently underway in Alberta. If this railway does eventually become realized, it's possible that we will see this evolve into an established energy export corridor. Something like this also has the potential to further open access to O&G developments in the territories, such as at Norman Wells, through spurs in the rail line.

CBC Article

[Gat-Train]

Originally Posted by ericmacm

A $22B, privately-funded Alberta-Alaska rail corridor, A2A Rail, will soon be approved in the United States at the federal level. This rail line will predominantly be used for the exporting of oil (among other things), and connect Alaska (Anchorage) to Alberta (Fort McMurray), passing through Yukon and Northern BC. It will carry twin tracks the full way through.

There is still a long way to go, starting with environmental assessments in all 3 provinces/territories, but there is progress being made. Engineering and surveying is currently underway in Alberta. If this railway does eventually become realized, it's possible that we will see this evolve into an established energy export corridor. Something like this also has the potential to further open access to O&G developments in the territories, such as at Norman Wells, through spurs in the rail line.

CBC Article

Thanks a lot! You've given me inspiration for a Canada fantasy map!

Also, bit of a shame that line skirts around Whitehorse. But do you suppose it would be possible to connect Whitehorse to the rest of Canada using that railroad?

[ericmacm]

Originally Posted by Gat-Train

Thanks a lot! You've given me inspiration for a Canada fantasy map!

Also, bit of a shame that line skirts around Whitehorse. But do you suppose it would be possible to connect Whitehorse to the rest of Canada using that railroad?

It would be possible, but it would be entirely A2A's decision to link Whitehorse through a spur in the future. Sending a spur line southbound through Whitehorse for exporting in Haines or Prince Rupert would absolutely be viable.

There was another company that was competing with A2A called G7G that had a similar conceptual oil-by-rail plan showing spurs to Haines (through Whitehorse) and Tuktoyaktuk/King Point (through Inuvik). Ultimately, A2A has been getting further with the FN groups in the area (and has now received approval in Alaska), so the G7G plan is essentially dead. I'm sure that A2A also has similar plans for spurs that they would pursue after building the line, but if they have them, they haven't revealed them yet.

[itom 987]

I would hope the A2A rail goes to Dawson City and connects with the Dawson City - Skagway rail line.

[jamincan]

Originally Posted by itom 987

I would hope the A2A rail goes to Dawson City and connects with the Dawson City - Skagway rail line.

I don't think there's a Dawson City - Skagway rail line? The White Pass and Yukon terminates at Whitehorse (and the tourist train terminates at Carcross). It's narrow-gauge, so I'm not sure if there's a lot of value in connecting it with what would probably be a standard gauge line.

[itom 987]

Originally Posted by jamincan

I don't think there's a Dawson City - Skagway rail line? The White Pass and Yukon terminates at Whitehorse (and the tourist train terminates at Carcross). It's narrow-gauge, so I'm not sure if there's a lot of value in connecting it with what would probably be a standard gauge line.

You are probably right about the rail line I was thinking about. A union station would solve the problem of different tracks. Tourists could take the train and see Fort McMurray, Nahanni National Park, and take that tourist train from Carcross to Skagway and back, then head to Whitehorse and take the train all the way to Anchorage. What a trip that would be!

[itom 987]

What about geothermal energy?

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by ericmacm

Agreed, nuclear is the answer that nobody wants to acknowledge. There is no feasible way yet to provide a stable baseload for a power grid using wind or solar. Either you have to use hydro, fossil fuels, or nuclear. Considering the vast environmental impact that hydro has, through flooding and the complete changing of ecosystems for reservoir creation, nuclear is the smallest footprint option by a long shot.

One nuclear plant close to the size of Bruce in Alberta could basically solve the entire coal/gas plant problem in the west. Adding some more full-size reactors at Point Lepreau in New Brunswick could eliminate the coal/gas plants in Atlantic Canada. However, this is not the solution people want, unfortunately.

They don't want it because they are uneducated and scared.

Originally Posted by itom 987

What about geothermal energy?

Not as much as you might think. We are not like Iceland whee that is a viable option.