Understandable. Most everything here at home that can be turned off is off (exceptions for the TV and coffee maker), and I’m just letting dishes pile up. Mind, I’m single, so that’s easier for me than it would be for a family. Might just be microwaved soup and a sandwich for supper.
Currently, -32C here, but tomorrow, we should be in the minus-teens (-17C if I recall correctly). So, a bit of a break. And yes, after four days of -30C or colder, that is a bit of a break.
Always! Thank heavens for Environment Canada looking out for us
Yep, it’s about the time of year for those faraway “plus-ones” to start showing up For example, I see that we’re looking at positive numbers … on Saturday, January 20.
Yes, that particular site is extra-special since it doesn’t require dam construction or the like. Nevertheless, I’m sure there are many other suitable sites, especially if one goes big.
I’m actually a little surprised at their costs, though. They’re quoting $1B for 4800 MWh and 320 MW. But a Tesla megapack only costs $1.5B for 4800 MWh and 1200 MW. Not much of a win, honestly. Especially since the batteries start working progressively, rather than all at once when the project is complete. And that big geoengineering projects aren’t generally known for staying within their budget, whereas the batteries are basically off-the-shelf and do have a history of staying within budget.
How do the efficiencies compare?
Batteries are typically a bit better, generally 90+% (round trip) efficient as opposed to 70-80% for pumped hydro. Though the hydro never loses “charge” over long periods. Irrelevant for daily cycling, but maybe worth considering when storing energy for weeks/months.
Batteries are great for peaking power, and to help flatten the duck curve in the morning and evening peak hours.
One critical difference between Alberta and say, the southern United States is that our solar goes offline in winter before we hit peak demand. Morning demand peaks before sunrise, and evening peaks after sunset.
As we add more solar, it makes the problem worse because you need a very steep ramp-up in power as solar goes offline while demand increases. At some point, you are making all the energy you need during the day, and not nearly enough at peak or at night, with very steep ramp in power required during the transitions.
I am very skeptical that batteries and pumped hydro can fix the problem at high percentages of wind and solar. Especially since they both have their own performance issues in severe cold. But if we are going down this path in a place where a grid failure could be a mass casualty event, you are being reckless if you shut down the reliable energy before you have a storage solution for the intermittant stuff. In that case, you are gambling people’s lives in the race to build out storage before a severe weather event kills thousands of Albertans. or the constant shortages drive us into bankruptcy with electricity costs.
This needs to be a careful, slow transition. Any new wind and solar from here should be paired with pumped hudro. And it should be up and running on the grid reliably before we shut down another BTU of fossil energy. And the fossil plants have to be maintained as backup until a replacement system proves its reliability over time. None of that happens by 2030, or 2035.
Here’s pur current situation::
https://twitter.com/ReliableAB
At least the last grid alert is over.
It might be wise to put the battery storage underground where temperatures are more stable. You can even flood the area with nitrogen to reduce fire risk. Abandoned mines (like for salt) would seem to be a good place.
I certainly agree that the storage needs to be ahead of the generation, or at least ahead of the fossil fuel decommissioning. But so far, it doesn’t seem like battery storage has any natural limits. On the contrary; it is actually a huge boon for grid stability.
I was wrong before; California actually has >6 GW of storage. I’m not sure of the actual capacity, but it appears to be at least 2 and maybe 4 hours of nameplate power. So, probably 12-24 GWh of storage. And it’s only taken a couple of years to build out, with much more on the horizon.
The transition doesn’t have to be careful and slow. It can be careful and fast, using lessons from what worked elsewhere. But it does require taking the problem seriously. And money.
This is being done in Utah (NYT gift link). Excess solar and wind power in the spring and autumn will be used to produce hydrogen that will be burned in the summer, when demand is high.
It occurred to me that, since they’re going to be electrolyzing a lot of water to produce the hydrogen, then storing and later recombusting the hydrogen, they could reclaim and reuse the water. And if the hydrogen-burning plant were at a higher elevation than the electrolysis facility, they might capture energy from reclaimed water running back down to the electrolysis plant.
So I poked at the numbers. The electrolysis plant is supposed to use up to about 730,000 cubic meters of water in a year, so presumably, you could recapture roughly that amount when burning the stored hydrogen. That amount of water would run a 1MW hydroelectric generator…for about 100 hours. Probably not worth it. 
(I do think it makes sense to capture and reuse the water from burning the hydrogen, though. Minimizing strain on local water supplies should be built into the process.)
The reality of fossil fuels in northern latitudes:
Hope you weren’t depending on that propane tank carrying you through the winter!
Total energy demand is highest in the winter (because of home and commercial space heating). It’s just electricity which has a summer peak:
And to deal with climate change we need to electrify home heating.
Right, which is why the hydrogen will be burned in the summer (along with natural gas) to produce electricity to meet summer demand.
That’s nothin’. Around here, we drink liquid oxygen.
Those power costs are incredible! Why are you paying so much? I assume you are just talking about electricity (do you have electric heat?) I’m in Ontario, so not the same generating mix or other factors, and use natural gas for heating, but my TOTAL electricity plus gas cost for the whole of 2023 is $2,210.
Heat and water has gone up in proportion to the tax hikes, but elextricity has gone through the roof.
This is the real cost of intermittant energy. It’s not the up-front costs, it’s the cost of mitigating the intermittancy of the supply. Without storage, electricy shortages have to be corrected by buying it from our grid partners bases on the current pool price. The pool price itself is a market system with many participants bidding and asking for power.
When the sun is shining and the wind is blowing, the pool price goes almost to zero. As low as $30/MW in summer. But in winter when our demand goes way up at the same time that solar starts to go away, we have a problem. And both solar and wind are very vulnerable to ‘dark doldrums’ and severe weather issues.
These are not rare occurances. Any time it is calm at night, you obviously have no wind or solar. You need to replace that somehow.
And wind and solar is vulnerable to storms and extreme weather when you need power the most. Last winter we had a snow dump during a deep,freeze, and almost all the solar went offline across the province for a month. We got 1.1% of capacity.
So in winter, the pool price goes up. And during times of high demand when there is no sun or wind, it can go above $1,000/MW. That cost eventually winds up on our energy bills as transmission charges, distribution charges, etc.
These bills are literally bankrupting Albertans. And the Trudeau gov’t promises they are just getting started. They want us to shut down more fossil energy and add wind and solar to,replace it. Quickly. And it is not going to happen.
So take away all Albertan wind and solar, poof! And how does the problem improve?
I just read an article: convert excess wind and solar to methanol and use that methanol when wind and solar is not available: