From Ken Ohrn:
.
A major transformation is underway. The tipping point has been reached. Everywhere, it seems, but in Canada, and particularly in BC.
The way others produce their energy is rapidly changing, with solar energy rising, and fossil fuels declining. The power plants may bear similar construction costs, but solar’s no-cost supply of an essentially limitless clean source energy is the key factor in it’s long-term economics.
Even with the Pope’s recent elevation of climate change action into the realm of moral imperative, our Federal and Provincial governments focus squarely on that which is in decline economically and morally — fossil fuels. And any chance to become a leader on design or manufacture of new-era energy technology is quickly disappearing. It’s a massive loss of economic opportunity; lost, I believe, due to pure partisan dogma.
There will be lots of Canadian jobs some day in changing our energy system, but it will likely involve contractors, designs and equipment sourced elsewhere.
From BloombergBusiness:
Renewables to Beat Fossil Fuels With $3.7 Trillion Solar Boom
Renewable energy will draw almost two-thirds of the spending on new power plants over the next 25 years, dwarfing spending on fossil fuels, as plunging costs make solar the first choice for consumers and the poorest nations.
Solar power will draw $3.7 trillion in investment through 2040, with a total of $8 trillion going toward clean energy. That’s almost double the $4.1 trillion that will be spent on coal, natural gas and nuclear plants, according to a forecast from Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
The figures show the traditional dominance of coal and natural gas suppliers will slip in the coming years as cheaper renewables mean developing nations can tap less-polluting sources to meet their swelling energy needs. The forecast from New Energy Finance also indicates that coal will remain an important fuel, suggesting policy makers must take further steps to control greenhouse gases.
A few cautionary notes on a transition to renewables.
The intermittency of decentralized, distributed energy (rooftop solar, local or regional wind) needs to be balanced with steady baseload power. Rooftop PV panels may be affordable and attractive but many arrays and facilities use natural gas-fired steam turbines to bring even power levels to the grid for industry. There is a cost to establishing that balance and building new transmission lines.
The life-cycle costs and carbon footprint of solar isn’t quite as rosy as espoused by those who do not concern themselves with the manufacturing process and bringing products to market. It may make a lot of sense to promote solar PV and thermal to permit a net reduction in emissions in jurisdictions with predominantly coal-fired electricity, but here in BC hydro, though not perfect, is still a lot cleaner than coal and fracked natural gas, and BC Hydro still charges very reasonable rates compared to the rest of the continent. It may be more affordable for individuals to stick with the grid and encourage Hydro to use its economic weight and procurement contract power to incrementally add offshore wind, local solar and regional tidal to its energy portfolio, and to upgrade its transmission capability than for homeowners to go offgrid. The glaring exception is run-of-river which gave too much public power away to the private sector along with water rights and the ability to jack the rates and make Hydro (i.e. the BC public) pay much steeper rates to cover the profits of BC Liberal Party donors and ROR companies.
This Part One of a sobering analysis of solar PV regarding life cycle costs, and the emissions and energy balance. Sobering, but also hopeful.
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2015-05-11/how-sustainable-is-pv-solar-power
Once low or zero-emission publicly-owned energy generation sites are on line (e.g. in BC hot geothermal has yet to be explored) then I believe the emissions and long-term costs will stabilize at an affordable level. In the meantime, it will take fossil fuels to mine and refine the materials, build the facilities and infrastructure and transport the products and energy over distance. The key is to develop a transition plan … and Canada is so far behind that it makes governments look utterly ignorant.
Part Two:
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2015-05-14/how-sustainable-is-stored-sunlight
In Kris De Decker’s first publication (linked above) you will see this solar insolation map. It appears that southern Alberta and Saskatchewan at 1400-1500 kWh/m2 have the best insolation in Western Canada, but that’s still a lot less than the 2300 kWh/m2 of the SW US.
http://krisdedecker.typepad.com/.a/6a00e0099229e8883301b8d0f4b2be970c-pi
With the California drought though, and the ramifications for food exports to Canada, perhaps it’s time to plan for solar greenhouses in the sunniest locations.
Well said. Solar nor Wind is not nearly as “renewable” or “sustainable” or “green” as advertised as the PV panels or wind turbines have to be replaced every 20 or so years.
I am very glad that Canada has not yet given in fully to this new age religion of “CO2 is bad” as much of CO2 is plant growth and global warming actually beneficial, especially for northern countries like Canada, and much of the underlying is disputed, by well spoken and widely read scientists like Bjorn Lomborg or Judie Curry. [ See here http://www.lomborg.com/publications or here http://judithcurry.com/ ) who essentially argue that the money we spend on some of these projects could be spent far far better elsewhere, even if global warming is happening, and even if CO2 is a contributing factor.
Here are ten reasons why global warming is actually beneficial, a much under-reported topic: http://listosaur.com/science-a-technology/top-10-possible-benefits-of-global-warming/
Any tax payer should ask him/herself if we truly want to pay 4 to 5 times as much for electricity as they do today in N-Europe or Asian, or soon many US states that are switching to solar or other “sustainable” energy schemes with nebulous benefits. Look at the tax subsidies paid in Ontario for solar. It is utter madness.
The big culprit is COAL, used a lot in Europe, US and of course India and China, and little actually in Canada. That is where the low hanging CO2 fruit is. Gas is fairly clean burning, and oil is rarely used for electricity production. Oil is primarily a transportation fuel, for cars, motorbikes, airplanes, trucks and ships.
The future energy mix will change, with oil and coal having less of a %, but due to cost will still grow somewhat until 2030 or so, then other sources will be more competitive in a growing world.
I’d much prefer if we focused on pollution first, and not this often rather irrational climate religion it has become due to scientific disagreements !
I have to ask, why do supposedly drive a hybrid if you think CO2 emissions have such an upside? Most well maintained gas cars hardly pollute at all even if they’re not hybrids.
In sunny locales utility scale solar is also getting down into $0.06/kWh range. As wind turbines get bigger, they may get there as well. That’s more than competitive with coal, gas and nuclear power. Storage is still an issue, but it’s getting exponentially easier to solve.
Also, we don’t know what happens to wind turbines after 20-30 years. They probably won’t need full scale replacement. Possibly just some new bearings and a refurbishment. That might be 5% to 10% of the price. You could likely say the same about most power plants.
Also what possible upside of increased CO2 in the atmosphere could offset the flooding of all low lying areas?
Perhaps you should be hawking house boats….
Wind is already at that price point. Recent wind farms in Quebec and Saskatchewan are contracted at rates around $0.06/kWh. In the US, many locations are even cheaper. In Brazil, cheaper than the USA. In BC, wind is already cheaper than Site C.
We do know what happens to wind turbines after 20-30 years; there are several examples around the world. The conditions will vary for each project, but the main options are replacing parts and keeping them running or installing new turbines. (Unfortunately replacing the parts consists of more than just bearings and a refurbishment, but in many cases parts replacement is the economically preferable option.) In almost all cases, if removal is preferred, the salvage value of the materials in a wind turbine will pay for their removal.
Because old turbines were much more complex. New ones have gotten rid of major systems like the transmission, in favour of a single generator with multiple aperatures.
I don’t think were at parity in BC just yet, or Hydro would be jumping all over that show. Also, our windy areas are pretty far out there, so transmission costs would be pretty steep.
BC Hydro’s estimates for Site C have ranged from $58 to $95 per MWh. Wind is at the low end of that range. (The latest procurement from Hydro Quebec resulted in three wind farms at an average price of $63 per MWh.)
BC Hydro has other reasons for not procuring more wind energy. Cost is not it. (My personal view is that BC Hydro is a large organization, resistant to change. They have a lot of momentum, after working almost exclusively on dams for so many decades. See also: Manitoba Hydro.)
BC’s windiest area is the Peace Region, precisely where Site C is going. Transmission costs are not higher for wind than for Site C.
Some turbines these days (e.g., Enercon, Siemens) are indeed direct-drive. But many (e.g., GE, Vestas) use gearboxes. Gearboxes need replacing every several years; blades also degrade over time and may need replacing. This is all built in to the overall price of electricity generated by the wind farm.
I’m much more optimistic than you about the transition to renewables, MB.
1. We currently have very low penetration rates from intermittent electricity sources in Canada (and in each Canadian province). Much more wind and solar (and geothermal, and tidal, etc.) capacity can be added without major changes to the grid.
2. BC, like Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec (and to a lesser extent, other provinces), has lots of hydro. Hydro is well suited to deal with changes in load and other generation.
3. Each intermittent source on its own is quite variable. Taken together, with their different diurnal and seasonal generation patterns, the variability is lower.
4. Energy storage (batteries, flywheels, compressed air, pumped hydro, etc.) has made significant advances in recent times. By the time we increase renewables on our grids to the point where system reliability is in jeopardy, the technologies will be quite a bit more mature and cheaper.
There’s no reason to put the brakes on integrating renewables. If anything, we (in Canada and globally) need to step on the accelerator.
Augustin, my optimism remains intact, but somewhat tempered with reports on the life cycle analyses of renewables.
Ideally, BC Hydro would, under a federal and provincial program, explore the huge potential of wind and tidal on and off the Coast and use its significant hydro base load to smooth the peaks and valleys. In-stream tidal, in my view, could provide abundant supplemental power for the entire south coast and its intermittency can be predicted years in advance and balanced by the minute with steady hydro power to provide a flat line voltage and stable amperage for industry. No need for expensive pumped storage, at least not at the large scale.
Hot geothermal power needs to be explored over the long range because the glaciers that supply the existing reservoirs have diminished in volume, in some cases more than 30% because of global warming. [That’s an observed fact, Thomas, not a model or a theory.] Geothermal does not flood valleys containing scarce soils suitable for high-quality food production, and does not rely on large amounts of water. Moreover, its waste heat could be piped to nearby communities and greenhouses and used for central heating.
At the provincial scale geothermal, wind and tidal when combined with our existing hydro presents a tremendous opportunity to supply abundant clean electricity to industry, consumers and for export at affordable rates.
At the national scale we have the potential to take advantage of the time zones and ship clean power from one jurisdiction to another at very low cost. You lose about 3% of the power every 1,000 km through resistance in high voltage DC lines, an amount that could easily be accounted for when BC sends power to Toronto during the Ontario morning peak at rates charged at the 4:00 a.m. BC low use period, then reversed three hours later. This power sharing could offset tens of billions in new power plant construction nation-wide and will be instrumental in powering down coal-fired electricity plants, but we will have to overcome the towering walls created by the provincial silos. This is where federal leadership could benefit Canada far into the future.
Yep, my optimism is intact.
I like the way you’re thinking.
“Yep, my optimism is intact.”
Glad to hear it! Full speed ahead, then 🙂
Reblogged this on Energy post.
A transformation is not underway everywhere, indeed substitute Australia for Canada in the article and you realise that Canada has company in a dogged and entrenched race to the bottom in the future energy industry. Australia even has a Prime Minister who believes that coal is good for humanity!
Coal is good for humanity as it provides cheap energy. It is only rich first world countries that can afford far more expensive energy. If the choice is eating, dying or getting electric energy to your village, people usually prefer the energy.
Canada is the top 6 or 7 biggest oil producer , producing much tax revenue for cash strapped governments and well paying jobs, far in excess of any solar or wind project. As such it would be foolish to shut down lucrative oil or gas projects for dubious climate benefits AND far higher energy costs.
Except that most studies show that health care costs associated with coal greatly exceed the cost of the power. As in $0.06 for a kWh, $0.24 in health costs and lost productivity from people dying prematurely…
So any place which even remotely values the health of their citizens or provides medical care should probably figure their power out sources a bit better. Alberta for instance.
Also, solar is undercutting coal in much of the 3rd world. No grid required means lower costs than installing a major plant and maintaining a grid.
“Coal is good for humanity ….”
http://america.aljazeera.com/content/dam/ajam/images/articles/Beijing_Air_Pollution_101713.jpg
I just love it when the wankerati don their pith helmets and dictate to the third world that they should either install solar panels or continue to burn dung, or their chopped down forests, in their living quarters and deal with the consequences of CO1 fumes, as long as they do not burn coal – as we have for the past few hundred years – because we gotta save the planet, man! We’re rich and we always know what’s best, for you savages. By the way; go back to sailing boats because these diesel engines in all your boats is naughty, naughty!
The straw man argument is one of my favourite fallacies! And this is a pretty good one. I love the imagery of people donning their pith helmets!