- Reaction score
- 2,759
- Points
- 1,090
but i dont think that would be in the panels themselves would it? More the controller or inverter?
obviously the solution is to break the dependence on the Chinese supply chain
Pipelines, energy and natural resources
- Thread starter QV
- Start date
obviously the solution is to break the dependence on the Chinese supply chain
Think economics. Renewables displaced the most expensive form of generation first and fastest. That was nuclear. After that it's been displacing coal. We're now starting to see renewables and batteries displace gas peakers. When it eventually gets cheap enough all gas.
We're also really early days on doing system of systems. So not just batteries at a solar site. But say pumped hydro at mid day solar peak that can be used later in the day or seasonally. Etc.
Thermo 101. What happens when you burn something to make motion? How do you balance the equation? Do you remember?
If you use electricity, you need a lot less total energy because primary losses are orders of magnitude lower. Compare the 90% efficiency of an electric motor vs. the 30% efficiency an internal combustion engine. One of them converts most input energy into motion. The other makes more heat than motion. If you replace and ICEV with an EV, what's the effect on your diagram? Hint: Not 1:1.
You know what the biggest expansion of the electric grid was for? Air conditioning. Do you think people put off buying ACs because the grid might collapse? Nah. They bought ACs and utilities spent the capital to upgrade the grid to meet demand. The exact same thing is happening with EVs. They can add will upgrade transmission. Not just for EVs. But for electric heating, data centres, etc.
By the way the average draw of an EV charging overnight for a commuter is no different than the AC at their house. Say 3 kW. For utilities this isn't much different than everybody doubling AC in a neighbourhood.
Commercial or residential? I know AI data centers consume large amounts of cooling and consume large amounts of electricity. I wonder if the population increase has been accounted in those exact numbers.
Many newer HVAC systems are very efficient.
Not a chance Especially when someone else pays the cost of the infrastructure. As long as they keep paying for cheap electricity.
It is funny because the Powerlines built in Ab over the past few years to send electricity to the US were funded by Albertans, not the end users. The same can be said about Bc's transmission lines and some of their power plants.
The costs are staggering for the infrastructure.
That actually can and has been very bad for many areas in the summer time who suffer brown outs.
This is one of those forced processes that when the true costs are known people cringe. When the actual costs are hidden and passed onto others people do not care.
I wonder what the average cost is across Canada and the US.
- Reaction score
- 10,985
- Points
- 1,040
One point of the image I posted is that the target is moving. Demand increased roughly 12,000 from 2014 to 2019, and another 12,000 from 2019 to 2024. In those two time frames the 4 categories at the top ("renewables") increased about 3,500 and somewhat under 7,000. The acceleration in demand is discouraging; the acceleration in supply is encouraging. However, another point is that the target is very, very large compared to their current contribution.
If you can use electricity. Micro-generation for small demands will cover a gap; it's unlikely to cover all gaps. (Recent amusing news: not all the heat from IC engines is "wasted" during Canadian winters, and some EVs are having difficulty meeting needs.)
Being over-enthusiastic about trend lines is just as bad as living in the past. I'm pro-tech, but I'm guarded with expectations.
- Reaction score
- 10,985
- Points
- 1,040
We had decades to adopt everything else we already have, and during much of that time projects were not as time-consuming or costly. Why big projects are so much more costly is important (provided the "why" could reveal some way to massively cut costs), but not as important as the fact that they are so much more costly.
I did a back-of-envelope calculation a while back and estimated I'd need to roughly double my household electrical consumption to match my annual mileage with an EV. (It would however be far less expensive per km.) How BC Hydro could approximately double supply in short order to suit governments pressing for wholesale EV adoption, I don't know. And that would only be the personal vehicle fleet.
The trend lines are likely to flatten, and we really haven't gotten very far yet.
And we'll switch to EVs over decades too. Average life of a car is 11 years. So even if sales went to 100% EV overnight (which they obviously won't), we'd have at least 11 years till the road fleet was 100% electric. In reality we won't see 100% EV sales till 2035-2040 in most countries and most segments. And then 10-15 years from that till the road fleet kicks over. So utilities are planning that they have to double transmission over the next 20-30 years. They'll do it. And you won't even notice. I guarantee it.
1) Most of the world isn't Canada. And almost anybody designing a product or service would be foolish to design for the outlier. Similarly, it's silly for Canadians who have an outlier climate to project our experiences.
2) Even in Canada, you're running your AC a lot more than you're running your heater. Maybe you live in Whitehorse. In which case, I'll give you this one.
In these discussions it would help if we stop mixing up global trends and national trends. We are a cold weather oil exporting country. We are not going to have the same local perspective as the majority of the world who live in warm countries that import oil. It would help to at least acknowledge that basic reality.
Last edited:
Crux of the challenge is the possible changing paradigm.
nationalinterest.org
PetroStates and ElectroStates in a World Divided by Fossil Fuels and Clean Energy
PetroStates and ElectroStates clash as fossil fuels and clean energy reshape global power, strategy, and alliances.
nationalinterest.org
And the speed at which it is happening is rather not well understood on this side of the Atlantic and Pacific. In 2004, it took a year to install 1 GW of solar. Today, the world installs 2 GW per day. Science Magazine just named the renewable surge as the breakthrough of the year. Because solar is now the world's most popular individual source of electricity. And wind has surpassed nuclear, hydro, oil and biomass as a source of power generation.
But if you hear the conversation in North America, one would think this is a minor passing fad instead of a trend that will reshape geopolitics in due course.
But if you hear the conversation in North America, one would think this is a minor passing fad instead of a trend that will reshape geopolitics in due course.
And at home, Nova Scotia becoming to wind power, what Quebec is to hydro and Alberta is to oil will also be good for an of us. Should make them more economically independent. And they'd produce a double digit percentage of the country's electricity. Hopefully, they can use it to attract energy intensive industry like data centres.
- Reaction score
- 6,045
- Points
- 1,160
It would seem to me that there are advantages to both as each is best suited for certain uses in certain areas. Best for Canada to aim to become an Electro-Petro State.Crux of the challenge is the possible changing paradigm.
PetroStates and ElectroStates in a World Divided by Fossil Fuels and Clean Energy
PetroStates and ElectroStates clash as fossil fuels and clean energy reshape global power, strategy, and alliances.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Fossil
- Reaction score
- 43,053
- Points
- 1,160
And the speed at which it is happening is rather not well understood on this side of the Atlantic and Pacific. In 2004, it took a year to install 1 GW of solar. Today, the world installs 2 GW per day. Science Magazine just named the renewable surge as the breakthrough of the year. Because solar is now the world's most popular individual source of electricity. And wind has surpassed nuclear, hydro, oil and biomass as a source of power generation.
But if you hear the conversation in North America, one would think this is a minor passing fad instead of a trend that will reshape geopolitics in due course.
And they're awesome until it's night time, or calm, or the cost accountants tell you the truth
Bjorn Lomborg: Why solar and wind power aren’t winning
All-in costs too high once you count fossil fuel and battery backups, land requirements and damage their equipment doesWe are constantly being told that solar and wind are now the cheapest forms of electricity. Yet governments around the world felt they had to spend US$1.8 trillion on the green transition last year.
Wind and solar only produce power when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing. When they are not, electricity from these sources is infinitely expensive and back-ups are needed. This is why fossil fuels still account for two-thirds of global electricity and why, on current trends, we are a century away from eliminating their use in electricity generation.
Imagine if a solar-driven car were launched tomorrow, running cheaper than a gas vehicle. It sounds great, until you realize it won’t run at night or when it’s overcast. So if you did buy a solar car, you would still need a gas car as back-up. You would have to pay for two cars.
Modern societies need power 24/7. Solar and wind power’s unreliable and intermittent operation involve large, often hidden costs. This is a smaller problem for wealthy countries that already have fossil-power plants and can simply use more of them as backup. But even in wealthy countries it makes electricity more expensive.
In the world’s poorest, electricity-starved countries, however, there is little fossil fuel energy infrastructure to begin with. Hypocritically, wealthy countries refuse to fund sorely needed fossil fuel energy in the developing world. Instead, they insist the world’s poor cope with unreliable green energy supplies that can’t power the pumps or agricultural machinery needed to lift populations out of poverty.
It Is often reported that emerging industrial powers like China, India, Indonesia and Bangladesh are getting more power from solar and wind. But these countries get much more additional power from coal. Last year, China got more additional power from coal than it did from solar and wind. India got three times more electricity from coal than from green energy sources, Bangladesh 13 times more and Indonesia an astonishing 90 times more. If solar and wind really were cheaper, why would these countries not use them? Because reliability matters.
Bjorn Lomborg: Why solar and wind power aren’t winning
Wind and solar's all-in costs are too high once you count battery backups, land requirements and the damage their equipment does. Read more.
financialpost.com
- Reaction score
- 26,574
- Points
- 1,360
Not sure nuclear is dead just yet. China more than double its installed power from 20GW to 53GW in the last decade. It’ll hit 100GW from fission in the next decade. It also had significant progress with its EAST fusion reactor; sustaining over 1000 seconds of stable fusion with Q significantly higher than 1.0. Globally, SMRs represent the next growth wave of accessible nuclear power, with Canada leading the G7 with construction of the first SMR amongst that group taking place at OPG’s Darlington NPP site. SMR and additional large reactors will increase Canada’s installed fusion power from 13GW to 20GW. So it’s not unreasonable to consider future energy generation globally to be heterogeneous, with solar development biasing to regions climatically favorable to unhindered power generation and low initial capex, while other regions will include solar generation as a supporting, but not majority component.
Similar threads
