Saturday 24 December 2016

# 29 Green energy requirements to meet Paris commitments.




Canada needs far more electric on-land transportation and carbon capture to meet its 2030 commitment



After this post was written I have developed single page pictures which can be tweeted and further text on my Facebook timeline. The original post 29 is too long and not entirely accurate. Here is picture # 32 to replace it

“With this picture # 32 on my Facebook timeline I will show with reference to other pictures and www.neilwilhees.blogspot.ca, how much money Canada can make abroad with hydrogen and CCU while coming closer to our Paris commitment. BC struggles with hard to sell electricity (picture 31). We need 18 Site C’s to feed electric cars overnight and have to create more flexibility. Present power supply and distribution requires long transmission lines involving substantial losses. For electricity in isolated areas and along new railways we have to look at minigrids. The combination of windfarms and hydrogen power (pictures 14, 20, 27) increases the capacity factor of windfarms and improves the capacity additions till 2040 shown above

Our present emissions are 720 Mtpa and, even without LNG, will rise to 765 Mtpa in 2030 (picture 1). We have to reach 524 Mtpa in 2030. The 241 shortfall could be compensated by part of : On-road passenger 77, on-road freight 74, rail transport 7, buildings 86, electricity generation 120, industries 76 and oil sands expansion 30. The total is 470, thus 221 more than required. Below is one scenario in Mtpa and corresponding required GWh/year of electricity. The 750 GWh per Mtpa of CO2 is based on the present mix of coal fired and gas fired plants excluding transmission losses. It will decrease as wind and solar increases. In the US, it has already come down to 620. Carbon capture can be a main source of reduction but the power requirements are about 30%, while 10% of the CO2 escapes. Electric cars and trucks are twice as efficient as gasoline or diesel. Diesel trucks have more efficient engines but more wind resistance, hence 750/2 GWh is required per Mtpa of emissions. Here is one scenario for 241:

Make 50% of cars electric, saving 39 Mtpa for 39x750/2=14625 GWh/y. Transport half of road cargo with fast new railways saving 37 Mtpa for 37x750/2x8=1735 GWh/y. Electrify 50% of all railways, saving 3.5 Mtpa for 3.5x750 =2625 GWh/y. Carbon capture for 50% of FF plants and industry, saving .5x .9( 120+76)=88.2 Mtpa for .3x 750(120+76)=44100 GWh/year. Use Hydrogen FC power for 50% of buildings, saving 43 Mtpa for .8x 43x750=25800 GWh/year. Cancel oil sands expansion, saving 30 Mtpa for 0 GWh/y. Total 240.7 Mtpa for 88858 GWh/y. As calculated in the text, only 73237 GWh/y will be available. That projection is for 2040 when we have to make another reduction of 124 Mtpa from 524 to 400 (picture 21)

A newspaper has summarized the Paris commitment, CCU, hydrogen development and oil transport by rail. You can find it at http://www.nsnews.com/opinion/letters/letter-clean-energy-initiatives-help-meet-climate-goal-1.22148725”

The text on my Facebook timeline appears with the added headings 1-4:



1

GW to GWh/y



When multiplying the GW figures in the graph with 24x365=8760 and applying the capacity factors you find that Canada counts on 73237 GWh extra electricity in 2040. The capacity factors for wind and solar are for Canadian conditions. All others are published averages.

Additions

NG 17x8760x.43=64036

Coal 3x8760x.64=16819

Geothermal 2x 8760x.73=12790

Wind 12x8760x.3=31536

Hydro 8x 8760x.4=28036



Total 45 GW=155582 GWh/y



Deductions

NG 2x 8760x.43=7534

Oil 1x 8760x.08=701

Coal 9x8760x.64=50458

Uranium 3x8760x.9 =23652



Total 15 GW=82345 GWh/y



Net 30 GW=73237 GWh/y



2

Object of post 29



 The post was started by a long discussion on desmog.ca after one person suggested that 51 site C’s are required to fill up our electric cars. It is clear that at 77 Mtpa and based on the difference in efficiency only 77x750/2= 28875 GWh/y are required. The output of site C will be 5100 GWh/y, hence only 6 are required for 24 hrs. With sufficient backup power from existing FF fuel plants and new hydrogen plants we don’t have to provide 3 times as much for overnight charging. 



3

Consumption based on car data



When you multiply the electric car consumption at 10kw per 100 km with the average driving distance and number of cars you will find the total consumption at 10x15,200x22,067,778/1,000,000/100=33543 GWh per year, which is 4668 (16%) higher than the Mtpa emitted based on efficiency



4

Hydrogen lowers generation requirements and cuts emissions



Cost of hydrogen power generation is still more than natural gas but less than nuclear.  A study in the UK concluded that windgas (pure hydrogen produced by wind power) is cheaper than nuclear. The US and South Korea have been building hydrogen/FC power stations up to 60 MW capacity and that is what we could do as well. Instead of building 17 GW new natural gas plants which emit 85 Mtpa greenhouse gas, we could have a larger number of hydrogen power plants. When, apart from electricity the heat can be utilized for greenhouse operations in Northern regions we only need 9 GW instead of 17. Without heat recovery, it would be 11 instead of 17. In both cases the 85 Mtpa emission will be eliminated.



5

Cost of CCU



Financing for CCU can be done on a per ton basis from an international fund. When a global carbon tax has been established all carbon exports can be taxed without creating unfair competition between countries.  The extra money can be used to finance CCU and help poor countries cope with climate change. Until then we could introduce a bill, like Senator Whitehouse did in the US. For a period of 12 years it will pay $ 35 for every ton of carbon removed. That amounts $ 9.4 per ton of CO2. The $ 40 per ton of CO2 proposed by the republicans may go global because it includes duties for countries with a lesser tax (points 1-7 post 30)



6

Canada’s power losses during transmission



The comments showed how much power is lost during transmission  With examples of present losses this is well explained in an exchange on desmog (8), starting with a comment about Mr Trump’s desire to cancel the US Paris commitment. Since the exchange of comments brought many other interesting data, I summarize the entire content. It shows how six people react completely different on a desmog article



7

Summary of comments received on desmog articles (3 and 8)



A

The first mention about how many 1100 MW units we need



I commented on an article about site C (3) that until a global carbon tax has been established the market is flooded with 4c/Kwh electricity from fossil fuel plants. We have a huge surplus of green power. We sell our 4400GWh/year Columbia River Entitlement for 4c. When the 5100GWh/year site C comes on stream we will lose even more, generating at 8.6c and selling for 4c leading to a yearly loss of $2 billion ( 1,000,000 x5100x $403) because 4.6c kwh/year amounts to .046 x 24 x 365= $403/year



Stew Wallach reminded me that electric cars would need a lot of electricity. He noted that based on 22067778 registered vehicles and Chevy Volt data the equivalent of 51.1 site C stations would be required to charge them in 8 Hours overnight. He also mentioned that windfarms would take up far too much space to deliver that much electricity. Based on his data I come to 12, which is still more than people realize.



B

If daytime surplus is stored in batteries, less stations would be required



An Oilman replied that by charging batteries during the daytime with solar you don’t need all that generation power at night. He also stated that by using modern wind turbines rather than 1.8 MW units the space would be 100 times less. That must have been a typo, 10 is possible



A fourth person with 50 years experience in BC Hydro and wind farms replied that the large turbines are only suitable for off-shore applications and that 7 MW units are the most practical for BC. He also noted that over 15 million batteries would be required. He interpreted charging during the day that it had to be done from roadside stations.



C

Vehicle to grid technology (V2G) may be a good compromise



The discussions were closed before I could show, that using the vehicle to grid (V2G) system would be a good compromise. It allows utilities to withdraw power from car batteries to deliver peak power. It is used in Denmark and has been tested by the Department of Defence in the USA.  In June 2015 I documented the system (post 21) and saw that the plugins were expensive but that may change. With V2G, cars, not used during the day, can be charged automatically by the net during the daytime. People with solar can load their power walls during the day and use it for car charging at night. By drastically increasing peak hour power pricing, people would be encouraged to install power walls even if they don’t have solar. They can charge them from the net during the daytime and charge their cars with them during the night. For those using only V2G, the utility will avoid loading empties during the peak hour while still having the opportunity to withdraw say 20% from full cars to deliver peak demand. Following the peak hour there is plenty of time to top them up. For long distance travellers we only need properly spaced battery swap stations, preferably powered by nearby wind farms with surplus power









D

My opening statement on (8)



I commented that if Mr. Trump contravenes the US Paris commitment it will be a benefit to China and Europe since they will from thereon dominate the development of green technology. China’s. $ 110 billion investment last year in clean energy amounts to 1/3 of the world’s total. They make more than half the world’s supply of solar panels. In 2015 five of the top 10 wind turbine manufacturers were Chinese. (reference 17in post 28).



E

The first response



I got a reply from Tami Beans showing a graph that the Chinese emissions were still rising rapidly. The graph did not show dates.



F

Emission trend in China



  The oilman replied to Tami that it was no longer valid. He referred to a recent Bloomberg report showing that emissions will expand more slowly. I responded that diesel oil consumption is dropping (due to converting trucks to natural gas).



G

Importance of CCU



In my reply to Tami, I noted that China counts on Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) to meet their obligations and started developing utilizing the carbon rather than storing it (CCU). The US is well ahead in that technology, which is much cheaper than CCS. Apart from using the captured carbon to make plastics, fertilizer and cement it is expected that by converting the captured CO2 to fuel cells, the greening of coal fired power plants will no longer double the cost of electricity, only 30% more. That will help Mr. Trump in keeping his promise to coal miners.



H

Comment on CCS

The Oilman replied that CCS in Saskatchewan is not very successful. I replied that pipe corrosion from Sulphur may be a problem and he agreed.



I

Progress in renewables



The oil man also replied to Tami Beans that globally we already have 20-30% renewable power and that in the future more storage and grid expansion is required.



J

Energy storage



 I showed the oil man that in Europe the vast network from the Sahara Desert to Norway is already a large storage reservoir requiring less local storage.



K

Cost of grid upgrades and 20% to 30% transmission losses



The oil man replied that grids are not cheap and the transmission losses are significant. He stated that the 5GW Alberta North South connection costs $ 20-25 billion and has 20% to 30% transmission losses.



L

BC power export to California involves 10-15% transmission losses



I wrote that we sell a lot of our surplus power to California and imagined that only minor losses were involved by admitting it to the net in some Washington feed points from where it would be absorbed nearby. In California a similar amount would be withdrawn to be replenished by nearby feed points.



 He replied that when we transfer Peace River Power to the US border 10-15% is lost in transmission. Also that Germany reached 30% renewables and are still doing grid upgrades.



M

Energy Storage is still expensive.


The oilman also noted that storage is still expensive, 5c/KWh for pumped storage and 12c for powerwalls. He also noted that 40% of our power supply is built for peak output, for 1-2 weeks a year, which makes it more costly. He feels that Canada needs to consider maintaining some sort of base load fossil fuel or nuclear since efficiency and seasonal variance will be a big issue up here.


N

Wind power storage via hydrogen production


I replied that some fossil fuel plants will also be required to feed the proposed G7G railway from Alberta to Alaska. To prevent transmission losses a number of wind farms will be required along the route. Hydrogen has become a good alternative to store excess wind power. Producing hydrogen from water by electrolysis is expensive but costs very little if it is done with power which otherwise would be wasted. The hydrogen, mixed with captured CO2 from a nearby fossil fuel plant can be used to feed that plant. (The system is used in Europe and the US plans to install them near CO2 pipelines, presently used for enhanced oil recovery. (EOR)



O

Coal miners future and rising sea levels



Wayne F stated that the US can’t just cancel its Paris commitment.   Tami Beans replied that they can. I replied that other Republicans will see the advantage of staying in, develop CCU which will keep coal fired power plants operating and save coal miners jobs.



James Wimberley noted that coal can only be saved with massive subsidies. I replied that a global carbon tax would be the answer (it allows taxing carbon exports without unfair competition and that money can be used via an international fund to pay for CCU) Tami Beans doubted that taxing carbon is doable and was afraid that people would be forced to eat less meat and that the present dirt cheap airfares would disappear. The oil man told Tami that the US would lose access to the EU market if they pulled out. I replied to Tami that a global carbon tax would cost far less than all the dikes required to protect low lying areas, (in particular deltas where most food comes from). He replied that both may be required and we should prepare to move to higher grounds. CC Holley agreed but wondered where the 150 million plus people from Bangladesh would move to.















 Carbon dioxide (CO2) is most often mixed with argon as a shielding gas used to prevent atmospheric contamination of molten metal in electric arc welding processesCarbon dioxide (CO2) is most often mixed with argon as a shielding gas used to prevent atmospheric contamination of molten metal in electric arc welding processesCarbon dioxide (CO) is most often mixed with argon as a shielding gas used to prevent atmospheric contamination of molten metal in electric arc welding processes
1


2


3


4


5


6




7

Figure 1. Emissions from Canadian agriculture in 2014 in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) represented 10 per cent of Canada’s total GHG emissions. Source: Environment Canada, 2016

8


9




10


11


12


13


14


15


16


17


18



19

20



21


22


23


24


25


26


27


28







28