The Climate Change Discussion Thread

[Hackslack]

Originally Posted by casper

I have looked at that a few times and each time there area a few things that are striking:

- Alberta is almost always brining in around 300 MW from BC.

- Wind and Solar are consistently underperforming well below their name plate capacity factor.

- Alberta has no shortage of Natural Gas, and Hydro capacity available that it could dispatch but instead it is burning coal. Clearly the utility operator has no commitment to reduce greenhouse gases when it has a choice. I can understand using coal as a last resort, but its the first choice. Since it is this weird "free market" that means the carbon tax is still to low to drive that decision in the correct direction.

You are wrong.

https://www.alberta.ca/climate-coal-electricity.aspx

In 2015 the government announced the elimination of emissions from coal power generation, to occur by 2030.
Alberta’s will be fully transitioned from coal-powered electricity by the end of 2023

[DougB]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

I can promise you that it's not.

Official line is delayed:
https://www.aeso.ca/assets/Uploads/p...CRPC_FINAL.pdf

[DougB]

Originally Posted by casper

I have looked at that a few times and each time there area a few things that are striking:

- Alberta is almost always brining in around 300 MW from BC.

- Wind and Solar are consistently underperforming well below their name plate capacity factor.

- Alberta has no shortage of Natural Gas, and Hydro capacity available that it could dispatch but instead it is burning coal. Clearly the utility operator has no commitment to reduce greenhouse gases when it has a choice. I can understand using coal as a last resort, but its the first choice. Since it is this weird "free market" that means the carbon tax is still to low to drive that decision in the correct direction.

Genesee 3 is currently coal and gas, and will be fully gas by end of 23. Genesee 1 and 2 will be converted to combined cycle gas by end of 23. The onsite coal mine will be decommissioned:
https://www.capitalpower.com/about-g...n%20activities.


The enormous Cascade combined cycle plant also comes online in 23:
https://cascadepower.ca/

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by lio45

Another factor is population: there are over 4 million people, out of which only one cigarette-throwing idiot is needed to start a fire, who live in/near boreal forests in Alberta; conversely, there's nearly no one who lives up there in Quebec.

Sorry to resurrect this but aren't there more wildfires right now in Quebec than in Alberta? Seems like the entire country is on fire right now.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Sorry to resurrect this but aren't there more wildfires right now in Quebec than in Alberta? Seems like the entire country is on fire right now.

Didn't age well for sure.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

You are wrong.

https://www.alberta.ca/climate-coal-electricity.aspx

Referring to this table:
http://ets.aeso.ca/ets_web/ip/Market...DReportServlet

Just looking at a moment in time. Today, they look to have one of their two Coal plants in operation and the dominant source of power is from gas followed by solar.

[Hackslack]

Originally Posted by casper

Referring to this table:
http://ets.aeso.ca/ets_web/ip/Market...DReportServlet

Just looking at a moment in time. Today, they look to have one of their two Coal plants in operation and the dominant source of power is from gas followed by solar.

So, is Coal Alberta’s first choice of power generation? Or is the much cleaner natural gas.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

So, is Coal Alberta’s first choice of power generation? Or is the much cleaner natural gas.

I don't know.

Generally Coal plants are more complex to turn on/off. You use them for base load. Same thing for Nuclear in places like Ontario or California.

Then you turn things like Natural Gas on/off to match load from day to day or peak hours.

[DougB]

Originally Posted by casper

I don't know.

Generally Coal plants are more complex to turn on/off. You use them for base load. Same thing for Nuclear in places like Ontario or California.

Then you turn things like Natural Gas on/off to match load from day to day or peak hours.

Generally, combined cycle gas and gas fired steam plants provide baseload capacity as they are difficult to cycle up and down. Simple cycle is used for peaking. Combined cycle and co-gen are more efficient. AESO has far more co-gen that most grids due to the contribution of oilsands and petrochemical plants. Basically, electricity is generated as a byproduct of steam.

Intermittent sources are a challenge, especially in an "Energy" market like AESO. They offer near zero marginal cost of generation so are often the lowest cost alternatives for specific HE intervals. As they are unreliable, they require simple cycle gas plants to be ready to take up the slack when the sun shines less or the wind blows less that forecasted. This leads to over investment in capital (need to construct more wind and solar than an equivalent baseload plant as intermittent sources by definition have low capacity factors, and construct simple cycle gas as backstop). It also leads to using less efficient simple cycle gas instead of combined cycle.

Storage is the obvious solution. Battery storage is unlikely to ever scale beyond the niche application of storing excess solar and especially wind from off-peak HE to sell into the grid during peak HE. Pumped hydro is the more likely solution as it can be ~80% efficient and scale. AB has several pumped storage proposals in the works:

https://www.power-technology.com/mar...ansion-canada/

https://www.tcenergy.com/operations/...umped-storage/

https://tentmountain-rex.com/

The challenge is that intermittent sources can often generate very little power for extended periods. In AB, that could be 2 weeks during a cold snap in the dead of winter. Using conservative math, AB consumes about 210,000 MWh per day on average (that number is likely much higher during a cold spell). Two weeks consumption would be almost 3,000,000 MWh. That would require pumped storage of at least 615 Tent Mountains to sustain the grid over that period.

Obviously wind and solar will only be small players in AESO's energy mix. Besides gas, nuclear is the only other candidate.

[DougB]

Originally Posted by casper

Referring to this table:
http://ets.aeso.ca/ets_web/ip/Market...DReportServlet

Just looking at a moment in time. Today, they look to have one of their two Coal plants in operation and the dominant source of power is from gas followed by solar.

Genesse 2 is off-line as it is undergoing conversion to combined cycle gas:
https://www.capitalpower.com/about-genesee/

[1overcosc]

Is there any serious movement to nuclear in AB like there is in SK?

[DougB]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Is there any serious movement to nuclear in AB like there is in SK?

No developed economy jurisdictions, SK included, are all that serious about nuclear, MOU's on SMRs aside. SMRs are promising, but until several models from several suppliers have demonstrated several years of operational excellence, they are nothing more than experiments. Until some jurisdictions prove that SMRs can be dropped into existing coal and gas plant sites without onerous regulatory hurdles, they will remain experiments. I wouldn't expect the technology to be widely adopted for at least another 15 years.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by DougB

No developed economy jurisdictions, SK included, are all that serious about nuclear, MOU's on SMRs aside. SMRs are promising, but until several models from several suppliers have demonstrated several years of operational excellence, they are nothing more than experiments. Until some jurisdictions prove that SMRs can be dropped into existing coal and gas plant sites without onerous regulatory hurdles, they will remain experiments. I wouldn't expect the technology to be widely adopted for at least another 15 years.

Poland is building new large-scale nuclear, and Ontario is reportedly considering it.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Poland is building new large-scale nuclear, and Ontario is reportedly considering it.

We developed CANDU reactors, might as well take advantage of our technology and build more. It is considered one of the safest nuclear reactor designs in the world.
Particularly if Canada continues to grow at 1M plus/yr

[Architype]

Originally Posted by Wigs

We developed CANDU reactors, might as well take advantage of our technology and build more. It is considered one of the safest nuclear reactor designs in the world.
Particularly if Canada continues to grow at 1M plus/yr

Yes, I think there will be renewed interest in nuclear power. Meanwhile, Newfoundland approves multiple hydrogen projects, but recognizes a new and different problem.

If N.L. approves multiple hydrogen projects, will there be enough workers to build them?

A lot of questions remain about the feasibility of Newfoundland and Labrador's tidal wave of green hydrogen proposals, but there's one quandary that stands above the rest for the companies bidding to start these massive projects.

It's not the technology or economics, which remain unproven at the scale being proposed in the province.

It's not the costs, despite projects having preliminary price tags in the billions.

It's a question of who will build the things if the province approves multiple projects at the same time.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Wigs

We developed CANDU reactors, might as well take advantage of our technology and build more. It is considered one of the safest nuclear reactor designs in the world.
Particularly if Canada continues to grow at 1M plus/yr

Th problem with CANDU is these are big plants by Saskatchewan or Alberta standards. CANDU 9 are just over 900 MW and CANDU 6 is around 600 MW. A CANDU 9 is idea for Ontario. New Brunswick has a CANDU 6 but much of the power is exported into the US market.

In the 90s, AECL had a project a foot to design a CANDU 3 that was around 350 MW. That is the size that would be suitable for place like Saskatchewan or Alberta. They were running that program out of Saskatoon at the time. Reid Mordon was the AECL CEO that killed the CANDU 3 program. If I remember correctly at the time he said something along the lines of "you could buy a CANDU 6 for the price of a CANDU 3 and a ham sandwich". He was right. When you try to scale one of these things down you don't reduce components you just have slightly smaller pumps and valve but don't eliminate much of anything.

The SMR that OPG has committed to building in Ontario is designed from the ground up to be a 300 MW reactor. Since it is a first of its kind and with a Canadian supply chain, it will be a "made in Canada" design and the follow on copies will use much of the same supply chain.

The division of AECL that owns the CANDU design was sold off a few years ago and is now a division of SNC Lavalin. They are partners with GE and Hitachi on the SMR that Ontario is getting.

[Wigs]

Thanks for the info, casper

But wouldn't a big plant mean Sask and AB could reduce if not eliminate coal fired power generation entirely? Seems like a worthwhile trade-off in 2023

[1overcosc]

Ontario uses between 12-25 GW depending on the time of year and time of day.

If SK's power use is proportional per capita to Ontario's, that means SK uses about 1-2 GW, or 1000-2000 MW.

Seems to me that a CANDU 6, at 600 MW, is small enough? Unless I'm missing something

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Ontario uses between 12-25 GW depending on the time of year and time of day.

If SK's power use is proportional per capita to Ontario's, that means SK uses about 1-2 GW, or 1000-2000 MW.

Seems to me that a CANDU 6, at 600 MW, is small enough? Unless I'm missing something

The problems with large units that have minimal ability to ramp up and down (i.e. most nuclear units) are:

- One need a large reserve that be activated quickly if a unit drops offline unexpectedly for reliability standards. If 600 MW drops off the grid, it's a big hit all at once for a smaller grid.
- Surplus power with no market at inopportune times. Ontario runs into this issue when it has a lot of wind/hydro excess and its large nuclear baseload. It has to either dump the power at very low (or negative) cost to nearby jurisdictions or just spill water around the dams.
- Minimal ability to follow load and ramp up production as needed.
- The logistical headaches of bringing in nuclear expertise to a utility that has no experience.

A 600 MW plant would be doable with retiring some of SaskPower's coal units. Absolute peak demand for SaskPower was just shy of 4,000 MW, so I'd wager that minimum demand (i.e. somewhat more than what you would build your baseload case for) would be in the 1,500-2,000 MW region. That maybe means two units.

However, for building just one or two units, the case falls apart. That means be no economies of scale for training, development, and construction. France made its bet with nuclear power by standardizing and building dozens of units.

Effectively, a nuclear fleet would need a larger market to justify the seriously hideous capital costs. It would have to be a Saskatchewan/Alberta cooperative thing to displace a number of large gas/coal units. Given the way each province runs its electricity system, that seems a non-starter.

I'd be curious is Saskatchewan could cut a deal with Manitoba Hydro for hydro development.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by thewave46

The problems with large units that have minimal ability to ramp up and down (i.e. most nuclear units) are:

- One need a large reserve that be activated quickly if a unit drops offline unexpectedly for reliability standards. If 600 MW drops off the grid, it's a big hit all at once for a smaller grid.
- Surplus power with no market at inopportune times. Ontario runs into this issue when it has a lot of wind/hydro excess and its large nuclear baseload. It has to either dump the power at very low (or negative) cost to nearby jurisdictions or just spill water around the dams.
- Minimal ability to follow load and ramp up production as needed.
- The logistical headaches of bringing in nuclear expertise to a utility that has no experience.

A 600 MW plant would be doable with retiring some of SaskPower's coal units. Absolute peak demand for SaskPower was just shy of 4,000 MW, so I'd wager that minimum demand (i.e. somewhat more than what you would build your baseload case for) would be in the 1,500-2,000 MW region. That maybe means two units.

However, for building just one or two units, the case falls apart. That means be no economies of scale for training, development, and construction. France made its bet with nuclear power by standardizing and building dozens of units.

Effectively, a nuclear fleet would need a larger market to justify the seriously hideous capital costs. It would have to be a Saskatchewan/Alberta cooperative thing to displace a number of large gas/coal units. Given the way each province runs its electricity system, that seems a non-starter.

I'd be curious is Saskatchewan could cut a deal with Manitoba Hydro for hydro development.

That makes sense. Thanks.

So really SK & AB are counting on further advancements in smaller reactors to get anything close to a true net zero grid.