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.
Wind power storage via hydrogen production
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.
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
