Confused about electricity regulation in Canada? You're not alone! There's likely not another jurisdiction that has more regulatory complexity relative to its size.
So let's break it down in a 🧵! Starting in BC, going "coast to coast to coast" (as we say up here.)
I am so so sick of people not understanding that gas furnaces have a fan that runs on electricity.
Blackouts in winter are just as deadly with gas furnaces as they are with electric ones. Please stop saying otherwise.
@Noahpinion
If you get people to rely on electricity for home heat, then even occasional winter blackouts turn deadly fast and I think you need more margin for error than that.
In fact this is good news. Fully amortized wind and solar farms can be repowered with the latest tech and lower costs than a greenfield site.
Don't mistake this for a problem, in fact it's one of the reasons for my optimism.
This is a sobering thought. All of the windmills currently installed will need to be replaced before our net zero target date of 2050 💀
Welcome to the Red Queen effect.
You can still do stuff like "cow pasture/range/feed/horses/goats/ethanol" in the land in between. Which is most of US land!
It's pretty dang close to the lowest direct use of land per MW, especially with larger turbines!
The implication here (range for EVs isn't any worse) shows you that "range" was never actually the problem.
We have solved the range issue, only to realize it is really a charging speed issue. Faster charging, not bigger batteries, is the way forward.
Alright folks, a bunch of people are pointing out that gas fireplaces don't need electricity.
That's great for those who one them, doesn't change much for the majority of people who don't.
I feel like people who valorize lifetimes >30 years for energy equipment have never done an NPV calculation with a moderately high discount rate before.
You have two options:
1. Conduct a rigorous technical and financial analysis to determine the right mix of electricity resources.
2. Use arbitrary metrics to come to a binary decision on the sole technology to use.
You have two options:
Tile the forested mountains with black silicon panels and get 50-100 megawatts for 25-30 years.
Put a BWRX-300 in an IKEA-sized building and get 290 megawatts for 60-80 years.
Which is better for the environment?
These charts should make it abundantly clear that the material usage difference between renewables and nuclear is basically irrelevant given how big of a step change both are from the status quo.
ROCKS
Nuclear energy has conspicuously low minerals/material footprint compared to other electricity generation technologies.
Brand new research from my colleagues
@TheBTI
:
This is very misleading. Steel production can be decarbonized with electricity, but the feedstock (pig or sponge iron) cannot be produced without coal/biochar, hydrogen or natural gas.
EAFs are mostly used for recycling, not primary steel production.
The dominant narrative in the Ontario is that the nuclear buildout in the late 60s-80s was a financial disaster leading to the collapse of Ontario Hydro.
I want to explore this history and explain why (I think) this narrative is wrong, or at least extremely misleading.
🧵
@KevinSKrause
@JohnSmillie42
Yeah the point is not that there's no way to make furnaces resilient, it's that we haven't bothered to do so, and it's not straightforward to do so for most ppl.
In that context, why the resiliency freakout over electric heat?
"But labour costs will eventually prevent utility-scale PV cost declines!"
Yeah nope, humans are sort of good at developing labour saving technology for modular installations.
Time for a 🧵 on running my hybrid gas+
#heatpump
system according to Ontario's ultra-low overnight rates!
TLDR - heating overnight with a HP is roughly HALF the cost of using gas overnight, pretty similar off/mid peak, and stupid expensive on peak.
#energytwitter
Nevermind that PHEVs have almost no capex advantage, much higher opex, AND we need to mine the fossil fuels needed to run them. There's just nothing here that tracks reality.
Why are nuclear advocates against BEVs? It's weird.
Hybrid tech is way underrated. Full EVs just consume too many materials with insufficient payback. “The last 10% of performance requires 90% more inputs” or something like that.
This is why people have perpetually underestimated solar PV cost declines, and why we are currently making the same mistake with batteries.
They're just a bunch of rocks guys! They can become infinitely cheap from an economic perspective!
$10-$20/kWh by 2050 (USD$2020).
I would want policymakers to know how this list could mislead them:
1. EROEI is not relevant to economics
2. load factors VS capacity factors
3. system costs cannot be determined without scenario modelling
4. energy density only really matters for EV batteries
7 things politicians should prove they understand before being allowed near energy policy:
1. EROEI
2. load factors
3. system costs
4. energy density
5. basics of supply & demand
6. the diff between energy & electricity
7. the diff between capacity & generation
anything else?
Alright folks, here's my gorgeous new new heat pump!
Currently pumping the accumulated heat from the day (it's 32C), alongside a crazy amount of water into my drain.
Gas hookup and full commissioning tomorrow - Ontario TOU rate strategy to come!
#energytwitter
#heatpumps
My hypothesis is range anxiety is more about charger availability and charge speed as it is about battery range (once you get beyond 240 miles/4 hours of driving), otherwise people would be anxious about their gas cars limited range, too.
Faster charging > enormous battery
Alright folks, it is time to stop using the word "reliable" or "reliability" unless you are talking about very specific power engineering topics. Bad use of words that have both technical and non-technical meanings poisons semi-technical debates about energy policy.
How on earth can one look at a list that leads with Jigar Shah and Jesse Jenkins and suggest a disregard for the importance of nuclear power?
My dude, the importance of clean firm (incl. Nuclear) is like all they talk about, sit down and pay attention.
Devotees of "renewables" have a colossal blind spot when it comes to reality: they nearly all disregard the clear necessity of a BIG NEW SLAB of nuclear power and follow the money all the way to their salaries and prestigious jobs.
Cults/mass delusions are ALL the same.
Because I keep reading about copper scarcity being a roadblock for the transition to renewable energy, I wrote a blog to refute that.
I show most copper can be replaced by aluminum, which will also be cheaper and better for the environment.
Germany's focus on nuclear retirement has single handedly ruined productive conversations about nuclear versus renewables - it's a real shame, and Germans should be ashamed of their country and leaders.
Any credit for early energiewende policies has very much been exhausted.
I'm pretty pessimistic on residential rooftop solar, it just seems that for the extra $/W, it just doesn't make sense when we can get the same benefits from commerical rooftops for less.
BUT *direct* PV use in homes is super interesting to me, here's a 🧵 of key opportunities!
This is an unbelievable abuse of community notes.
There's a legitimate debate on the role of CCS, bucy the "evidence" can't tell you whether it's cost effective or important - this is an extremely complicated and uncertain question which we need to debate context-by-context.
Community notes adding some important context on Chevron's CCS advertisement.
Oil & gas interests have been pushing CCS -- a transparent attempt to greenwash fossil fuels.
Today is an exciting day - time to ditch this SEER 9 monstrosity (and it's single stage indoor cousin) and get a hybrid heat pump!
Updates to come!
#energytwitter
#heatpumps
I'm sure Jesse will have a robust response, but I want to emphasize how much variation there will be in load profiles and solar performance.
This means there isn't going to be a "rule of thumb" that works for generalizing like this, you just have to model it.
Seems like if we overbuild by 70% and have batteries for nighttime, solar's intermittency is pretty much a solved problem.
@JesseJenkins
would you say that sounds roughly right?
Lego is scrapping plans to make its toy bricks from recycled plastic bottles after determining that switching to the material would result in it producing higher carbon emissions.
(please, someone buys a drink to the subeditor who came with that headline)
One of the reasons I'm so passionate about decarbonization in Canada specifically speaks directly to one of Hannah's points here - if we do it, it makes it so much easier for the rest of the world.
I often hear claims like "the UK [or another country] only emits 1% of emissions. What we do doesn't matter."
Here's why I think that's a poor argument:
Three words from this podcast every policymaker/analyst needs to hear:
"Agency requires uncertainty."
If your analytical approach revolves around "predicting" the future, it's bad policy analysis.
Specifically, I talk with Erica Thompson (
@H4wkm0th
) about her new book Escape from Model Land, a thought-provoking account of how models work, the assumptions & uncertainties involved, & the role of human judgment in applying the results to the real world.
The idea the transition doesn't have benefits will die hard, but two *current* realities show it's nonsense:
- EVs are already cheaper to own than a new vehicle (if driven often)
- gas+electric heating is cheaper and more comfortable than gas-only heating
Net zero is "not like the fortunes we spent setting up the railways in the 1840s or the electricity grid in the 1950s or the internet in the 1990s. These gave us something new and useful. Net zero merely gives us exactly the same product in a different way...
It's like replacing
As we think about the right mix in Ontario going forward, it behooves us to clearly understand what worked and what didn't.
As always with my threads, welcome clarification or debates on this weird history - but bring evidence, NOT vibes!
Hope you enjoyed the 🧵!
I'm isn't really. Both new nuclear technologies and better solar and batteries are both far more promising.
I'm all for funding it as a science project, but it doesn't qualify as strategic investment in a medium term context relative to alternative investments.
Nuclar fusion is the most important technology under development today for long term human flourishing yet commands just 0.5% of total government research outlays. It easily deserves 10-20x this commitment.
This paper deserves another upvote: the faster we transition to renewables (RE) the more money we save!
In essence it's simple: RE become cheaper as we scale up until they are cheaper than fossil fuels.
If we scale up faster the moment we profit from cheaper RE comes earlier.
Holy BEV misinfo batman!
- rentals were always an odd fit this early
- demand isn't actually waning
- there's plenty of rocks bro
- "china bad" is a lame argument
- NG power with EVs lowers emissions
- transit as the solution? Gimme a break...
@surlygopher
It is a problem in Canadian northern communities where electricity is subsidized and you get fuel oil allocations. Folks run the oven and sell the oil.
Not their fault, they're making the best of a hard situation.
Today, for the most part, you can use electricity whenever you want, but you have to watch how much.
In the future, it will flip if we do this right - use as much electricity as you want, but just watch when you're using it.
This is definitely a problem for residential heating electrification. It's also in part a product of rate design choices, treating network usage as if it is a volumetric cost (it is not) rather than driven by coincident peak usage. Electrification demands a rethink of rate design
Amazon building a data center right behind homes in Virginia.
If you’re going to buy a home next to an empty lot, make sure to do thorough due diligence.
We have an obligation to understand the economics of energy, as it is how we define wealth, prosperity, and abundance from a material perspective.
There is no universal formula to convert physical aspects to economic ones, just textbook exercises in confirmation bias like this.
We have a moral obligation to understand the physics of our energy economy because it is the basis of all wealth, prosperity, and abundance in your life, and the lives of all future generations.
It's important to first recognize two key points upfront.
1) Internationally, Ontario's nukes are seen as a financial success and something to emulate.
2) Of the ~14GW of capacity, only 3.6 GW at Darlington suffered from cost overruns.
I know this is confusing for most people, but you either break down the complexity or hide it, you can't really make it go away.
These fees are a direct consequence of public policy, not corporate policy. If you don't like them, your issue is with regulators, not utilities.
People are horrified when they get itemized billing from their electric utility and see all the underlying grifting spelled out for the first time.
That's why every utility tries to hide all of their absurd underlying fees, charges, and trackers by just showing you a total.
Do people know that when we build solar plus storage, that the solar charges the storage and then we get 80% back out of it later?
Just curious. Seems like a rosy picture is portrayed, but it’s quite impactful in terms of materials.
The idea efficiency is the "cheapest kWh" bugs me.
Energy is a means to an end - if you avoid the means, you don't get the ends. That's called "opportunity cost", and it's just as important as any other cost!
Promise you it nets out for Olympic athletes wanting aircon.
@duncanmgibb
I'm fully happy to admit that the French view on AC is a bit like encountering an alien when an American is involved, but it doesn't stop the mantra of 'the cheapest kWh of electricity is the one you do not use' no matter where that kWh comes from being 100% true.
Had a debate about new nuclear designs. The argument is, why wouldn't you build nuclear plants with better safety, fuel economy, and waste management?
The reason folks, is that those are the EXISTING advantages of nuclear. Piling on tech makes the core problem - capex -worse.
"20 year old system needs to be replaced, must mean it's a failure!"
There's interesting news here, but I am confused about why everyone doesn't freak out at the end of life of gas furnaces which have warranties of (checks notes)... 20 years.
So much misinfo flying around!
🤦♂️
Drake Landing, Alta., once the leading solar heating community of its kind in North America, may have to revert to fossil fuels as the aging system is breaking down and may be too expensive — or even impossible — to fix. .
The end of cost declines for PV, in my view, are being greatly exaggerated.
Julien provides a good summary of this point of view in this post, but I want to go through why I think it misses the forest (LCOE) for the trees (module prices).
If developed countries want to help developing ones decarbonize, the best thing they can do (aside from significant direct aid) is scale the technologies in their own economies to de-risk them.
I think about this every time someone says "but Canada's total emissions are tiny!"
My
#hotTake
is this: Many in climate space in the West tend to project their view of conservative/progressive divisions on climate on to developing countries.
It just doesn't work that way. The politics (+solutions) of climate are *very* different in developing countries.
Nuclear pitched as "too cheap to meter" was a golden example of engineers not having a clue on techno-economics, doing a disservice to nuclear energy in the process.
It serves as an important reminder how useless EROI is as a predictor of cost.
I don't think that environmentalists are as powerful as they think when it comes to nuclear & CCS/CDR.
Nuclear never delivered on the "too cheap to meter" & CCS / CDR has not performed sustained, at scale, & at reasonable cost. It is "cost" that ultimately kills these things!
I think before defining individual actions that can affect climate change, there's a key prerequisite question: do you own a (heated) home and/or a car?
If so, you need an EV or a heat pump (hybrid fine for now). Until then, anything else you might do is a rounding error.
A question I often get asked at Climate Capitalism book events: So what should I do about tackling climate change?
My answer: Two big baskets. An individual's power lies in their influence and their actions. And currently influence can count for a lot more than actions. 1/2
There's one really important line in here, which I want to explore in a long🧵:
"There is an outstanding question over ...hybrid systems... not necessarily because of efficiency performance but because of the high output capacity of heat pumps needed at very low temperatures."
NEW RESEARCH: Heat pumps are 2-3x more efficient than oil and gas based fossil heating systems in cold and sub zero temperatures.
Even in temperatures approaching -30°C they perform significantly better than their fossil-fuel based competitors.
All the detail here👇
Today, nuclear power is the backbone of Ontario's low carbon grid, and I shudder to think what it would look like with coal instead. Hydro from QC wasn't really an option either, as they struggle to build enough supply to meet peaks as residential heat was electrified.
Had Quebec - lauded for the lowest electricity prices in the world - failed to promote space heat electrification, they would have had the exact same problems as Ontario. Importantly, Hydro Quebec was also developing nuclear at the time.
Demand growth from electrification is inevitable, but I do think most people underestimate how much industrial energy efficiency is likely to blunt the effects of growth in the long run.
What happened was, amid the tumult , the corporation was dissolved according to the "deregulated" model sweeping the United States. In the end though, this ultimately meant the level of "regulation" in Ontario's grid was about to grow exponentially.
Given multiple drivers, one thing is clear: cost overruns on 3.6/14GW of capacity did not - on their own - cause electricity prices to jump 31% between 1991-1993.
More important, by a wide margin, was the fact demand was simply much, much lower than OH had anticipated.
The construction costs of an all-electric home relative to a baseline natural gas home in four representative cities range between $4,000 and $15,000.
In colder climates, the more expensive electric equipment also results in higher costs for energy use.
Wind/solar advocates used to call energy storage "the holy grail", but that's stopped. Why?
Because now storage has scaled, and it hasn't automatically made VRE-only grids cost-effective.
Energy is too complex for holy grails. Fusion boosters would do well to remember this.
Fusion is the Holy Grail of energy.
Advanced fission is buried treasure whose location is marked with big X's on readily accessible, easily duplicated maps.
Conventional fission is accessible treasure generating abundant income today.
Cold weather sucks - but they're a great day for looking at electricity supply mixes in Ontario!
Say it with me folks: wind 👏 can 👏 help 👏 meet 👏 seasonal 👏 peaks!
#energytwitter
So why this narrative? Let's unpack the history.
In the early-mid 20th century, the system was controlled by a provincial commission.
It was created to exploit the substantial hydro resources and operate new local distribution networks financed via municipal debt.
I want to make one thing very clear - Ontario Hydro did not "go bankrupt". It fact, it couldn't really as a crown corp. If expenses were greater than revenue, then OEB simply raises rates (as they did in 1991-1993).
OH was no closer to bankruptcy than the government itself.
Here, it boils down to the 1970s oil crisis, which created a heretofore non-existent pressure for utilities to promote conservation.
It also drove a shift to domestic sources and the expansion of the gas network, robbing the nuclear fleet of a critical source of load growth.
Finally starting the
#electrifyeverything
process in my own home, and have run into a frustrating barrier that heat pump water heater manufacturers should note: My basement ceiling is not high enough for a heat pump water heater.
The heat pump adds a lot of height!
This is an ostensibly thoughtful thread about energy technology tribalism.
Unfortunately it completely undermines itself by simply concluding pro nuclear tribalism is better than anti nuclear tribalism.
This is a nasty and unsubstantiated attack and one of the most valuable and advanced pieces of analysis ever done on US decarbonization.
There's lots to debate about in this study, that's healthy.
Do that. Not this. This is just lazy.
>>BP paid $2 million for Princeton's Net Zero America study, according to new Senate report.
>>The study recommended that the US prioritize investment in CCS.
>>IIJA & IRA subsequently enacted, massively expanding CCS subsidies
>>BP to get billions $$$
This became the vertically integrated "Ontario Hydro" Corporation in the 70s, now a rate-regulated crown corporation.
It was during this transitional period from the late 60s - 80s when Ontario's nuclear fleet was built, and was also a time when energy paradigms were shifting.
It's a complex story, but I do think it's paints a more nuanced picture than "nuclear cost overruns did it."
It also makes it clear that nuclear power wasn't necessarily a bad choice, the planned buildout was just misaligned with an evolving energy policy context.
As expected, concerns about the slowing costs declines of solar and batteries are aging badly.
Maybe wait a year or two after a pandemic to start ringing the alarm next time?
"Battery prices are back to a declining trajectory in 2023, after an unprecedented year of increases in 2022.
@BloombergNEF
's annual battery price survey has found that the volume-weighted average price for lithium-ion battery packs dropped to $139 per kWh in 2023, a 14% decline
Now things get messy - the new firm would last scarcely more than 20y. While the nukes had been planned by a commission gung ho on expanding electricity demand, the new planning context which was almost diametrically opposed.
(great paper below)
It is staggering to me, after how much progress we've made on a levelized cost of PV, how much further we still can go.
And it's important, PV's production profile means we really do need ultra cheap prices for high penetrations to make sense.
@KevinSKrause
@JohnSmillie42
Yeah the point is not that there's no way to make furnaces resilient, it's that we haven't bothered to do so, and it's not straightforward to do so for most ppl.
In that context, why the resiliency freakout over electric heat?
Good thread on a common misconception about heat pumps, a few points to add:
- an oversize with a good turndown ratio (e.g. 25% like mine) won't run inefficiently
- important to note resistance provide supplementary heat, not backup, so you still get a COP of 1.5+ at -30
I’m seeing a lot of assumptions over the last couple days around backup heat for heatpumps needing to be duplicate equipment.
Here’s a small 🧵 on heat strips.
This meant many, many new local distribution networks, and the associated municipal debt, were incorporated as new firms. As a result, Ontario's urban distribution system is fragmented between 63 municipally owned firms, now all regulated by the OEB.
This thread is very clearly written by a successful tech expert, not an expert on energy systems or climate change.
It has a large amount of directionally accurate information, but ultimately provides a deceptively incomplete picture of climate solutions.
We could easily stop climate change right now if we wanted to
For example, we could pause global warming with 100x less money than countries pledged in the recent UN's COP28
If we don't do it, it's just because we don't really want to
Here's how to do it in 3 steps 🧵:
The mechanisms of cost reduction matter! Solar is getting cheap for reasons that are different than wind. If nuclear gets cheap it will be for reasons unique to the technology. Can't just rely on learning rates and modularity and stop thinking about this.
A lot of people compare small modular reactors (SMRs) to solar and batteries. We made them cheap by producing them repeatedly at scale.
But, solar panels didn't get cheap by chopping them up into smaller pieces to make the same total.
We exponentially scaled module production.
Got my gas bill this month, -$9.55! How is that possible?
Last month they didn't read my meter, so they assumed I used the same amount as last year. This month I finally reaped the reward of the hybrid heat pump, as my gas usage was 130m3 lower than last year!
The reality was, Ontario's nuclear fleet was never viable unless paired without the kind of demand stimulating programs that the commission has spent the last 70 years engaging in.
Great example of this ambition in my old thread below.
So, on a per-GW capacity basis, most materials are unsurprisingly concrete + steel. Solar needs the least materials (114 kt/GW). An AP1000 nuclear plant or offshore wind farm are both at 280 kt/GW. Onshore wind, the EPR, and BWRX-300 are comparable at 540-630 kt/GW.
@RickScampini
Yeah to be fair you can solve that problem, we manage *fine* in Canada on -45C days. (Only pointing this out so someone more annoying can't use it to upend the actual point lol).
The asset value would need to be written off by these new firms and the debt absorbed by taxpayers, but ultimately still paid via ratepayer revenue streams.
This shows that while the debt was absorbed by taxpayers, the cost was ultimately still borne by ratepayers.
@AMoser_E
I am being sarcastic and snarky. I do not need you to explain to me that electric heating uses more electricity than gas heating.
But people very much need it explained to them that gas heating requires electricity.
Wind and solar have capacity value - they need firming/balancing power, but have yet to see an hourly model suggest a need for 100% backup.
Also, capacity value manifests at the system level, not generator level; that changes with every incremental new kW of demand and supply.