What doubling the grid really means

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

” imagine if someone said in the next 25 years and 11 months, we must twin every single freeway, highway, grid road, street and alleyway, across the entire country, at the same time. And along the way, we have to replace up to 89 per cent of the existing infrastructure, as well, because it is no longer considered adequate “

Recently my daughter called me while on her way back from a Costco run in Regina, heading home to Weyburn.

She noted that it appears they are twinning the highway between Regina and Weyburn. Indeed, they are, I explained. And several years later, they’ll probably get it all the way to Weyburn. Maybe by the time I retire, if I live that long, they’ll get as far as Estevan.

Indeed, those timelines are likely pretty close to reality, if the twinning of Highway 16, from Saskatoon to Lloydminster, was any indication. I used to drive from Saskatoon to North Battleford to get the newspaper I was working for printed, with road construction for much of that. And it took several more years to complete the Battlefords to Lloydminster portion. I was fortunate enough to be present at the ceremony for that. It was significant enough that Premier Lorne Calvert came out.

Twinning a major highway is a substantial undertaking. Historically, Saskatchewan could usually only afford to work on three separate areas at a time, typically doing 20 kilometres per year in each stretch. That was all the provincial finances could handle.

By adding an additional two lanes, you are effectively doubling the capacity of that major piece of infrastructure. It’s not easy, not cheap, and not fast.

Now imagine if someone said in the next 25 years and 11 months, we must twin every single freeway, highway, grid road, street and alleyway, across the entire country, at the same time. And along the way, we have to replace up to 89 per cent of the existing infrastructure, as well, because it is no longer considered adequate.

You’d probably think they were living in a dreamland, or quite possibly stark raving mad.

And yet this is precisely what the federal government is proposing, nay, demanding, of Canadians from St. Johns to Victoria to Tuktoyaktuk.

In order to save the world from anthropogenic (manmade climate change) and attain a “Net Zero by 2050” economy, we must increase the size of the electrical grid by a factor of 2.5x. And for Saskatchewan and Alberta, who on any given day get up to 88 and 94 per cent of their power, respectively, from fossil fuels, they must also replace that existing gas and coal power generation with non-emitting sources, at the same time as they’re building out the truly massive expansion.

The first reference I saw of the federal Liberal government’s intentions of this was in the 2023 budget, which noted expanding the electrical grid by a factor of 2.2 to 3.4 times. By August, when they released the proposed Clean Electricity Regulations, the government seemed to settle on a factor of 2.5 times for the high demand scenario.

So in the highway twinning example, that would be adding three lanes, not two, to every two lane highway, grid road, street and alleyway. For an existing four lane highway, you would need to add six lanes. For a six lane freeway like Ontario’s 401, you’d need to add an additional nine lanes, finding the right of way space, concrete, rebar, gravel, and asphalt for all of this. Again, all at the same time, in 25 years and 11 months.

There are several thrusts that the federal government is pushing. First, by 2035, they want to totally eliminate gasoline and diesel from new light vehicle sales. There’s currently only eight retail hydrogen fueling stations listed by the federal government and Shell in the entire country. There could be more, but they’re not listed. Realistically this means battery-powered electric vehicles (EVs). But nearly all of those EVs will require charging at home each night (and especially during winter, pre-conditioning those batteries, keeping them warm).

So every residence in the country will require 30 amp chargers for cars, and 80 amp chargers for pickups.

But the government is also now moving away from fossil fuels for home, heating, too. This was indicative of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s pause on the carbon tax for home heating oil (primarily used in Atlantic Canada, although I grew up in a house with that system). To do so, the feds are offering “free” installations of heat pumps (which are wholly inadequate at -30 temperatures, let alone the -44 seen in Alberta in mid-January). And those could be up to another 50 amps, per heat pump.

And that’s just residential, never mind commercial or industrial.

The Clean Electricity Regulations are meant to force fossil fuel power generation to go away. And since wind frequently drops to nothing, and the sun goes down every day, the only real alternative is massive expansion of nuclear power across Canada. We’re talking small modular reactors by the dozen in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and to a lesser extent, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.

On Jan. 30, SaskPower announced a formalized agreement with General Electric-Hitachi for small modular reactors. But when I asked how many they plan on building, the CEO wouldn’t say. But he did speak of increasing the provincial grid from 5,400 megawatt now to 13,000 to 15,000 megawatts.

Hydro Quebec just released their plans to double their grid. Yet, perhaps miraculously, they’re not saying how many, if any, new dams will need to be built.

This doubling of the grid (actually 2.5x, but that’s not easy to say), means we’re going to need not only additional generation, but transmission lines, distribution lines, back alley pedestals, and wiring to every home, business and factory in the country. Where the materials come from? The contractors and workers? Will Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) be universally trampled on by eminent domain orders, for the good of the planet? Or will it be a continuation of Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything Syndrome (BANANAS)?

A very real example is the Trans Mountain Pipeline. The original was built in something like 16 months, from scratching dirt to oil flowing. The expansion is taking a hell of a lot longer. Work started in 2018, and it is still not done. Any change in the plan had to go back to the Canadian Energy Regulator. Some First Nations fought it every step of the way.

Now do this for every single piece of existing power infrastructure. Wrap your head around that for a minute.

This supposed energy transition, from fossil fuels to electric everything, does not work if you cannot build out the electrical infrastructure, everywhere, and essentially all at in the next 25 years and 11 months. Either the timelines need to be stretched to a generational scale, or more realistically, the whole concept needs to be entirely rethought.

As Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe has said more than once, “We will not attempt the impossible when it comes to power production.”

Brian Zinchuk is editor and owner of Pipeline Online, and occasional contributor to the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. He can be reached at [email protected].

Related Topics:#BrianZinchuk #DoublingTheGrid #ElectricalGrid #FrontierCentreForPublicPolicy #PipelineOnline feature

Up Next

Emissions cap “will not be tolerated in Alberta” – Letter to Environment Minister Guilbeault

Don't Miss

From swaggering to staggering – Canada’s decline into irrelevance

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Trump’s government efficiency department plans to cut $500 Billion in unauthorized expenditures, including funding for Planned Parenthood

Alberta / 5 hours ago

Alberta government announces review of Trudeau’s euthanasia regime

Censorship Industrial Complex / 5 hours ago

Congressional investigation into authors of ‘Disinformation Dozen’ intensifies

Energy

What does a Trump presidency means for Canadian energy?

Published on November 20, 2024

Todayville

From Resource Works

Heather-Exner Pirot of the Business Council of Canada and the Macdonald-Laurier Institute spoke with Resource Works about the transition to Donald Trump’s energy policy, hopes for Keystone XL’s revival, EVs, and more.

Do you think it is accurate to say that Trump’s energy policy will be the complete opposite of Joe Biden’s? Or will it be more nuanced than that?

It’s more nuanced than that. US oil and gas production did grow under Biden, as it did under Obama. It’s actually at record levels right now. The US is producing the most oil and gas per day that any nation has ever produced in the history of the world.

That said, the federal government in the US has imposed relatively little control over production. In the absence of restrictive emissions and climate policies that we have in Canada, most of the oil production decisions have been made based on market forces. With prices where they’re at currently, there’s not a lot of shareholder appetite to grow that significantly.

The few areas you can expect change: leasing more federal lands and off shore areas for oil and gas development; rescinding the pause in LNG export permits; eliminating the new methane fee; and removing Biden’s ambitious vehicle fuel efficiency standards, which would subsequently maintain gas demand.

I would say on nuclear energy, there won’t be a reversal, as that file has earned bipartisan support. If anything, a Trump Admin would push regulators to approve SMRs models and projects faster. They want more of all kinds of energy.

Is Keystone XL a dead letter, or is there enough planning and infrastructure still in-place to restart that project?

I haven’t heard any appetite in the private sector to restart that in the short term. I know Alberta is pushing it. I do think it makes sense for North American energy security – energy dominance, as the Trump Admin calls – and I believe there is a market for more Canadian oil in the USA; it makes economic sense. But it’s still looked at as too politically risky for investors.

To have it move forward I think you would need some government support to derisk it. A TMX model, even. And clear evidence of social license and bipartisan support so it can survive the next election on both sides of the border.

Frankly, Northern Gateway is the better project for Canada to restart, under a Conservative government.

Keystone XL was cancelled by Biden prior to the invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Do you think that the reshoring/friendshoring of the energy supply is a far bigger priority now?

It absolutely is a bigger priority. But it’s also a smaller threat. You need to appreciate that North America has become much more energy independent and secure than it has ever been. Both US and Canada are producing at record levels. Combined, we now produce more than the Middle East (41 million boe/d vs 38 million boe/d). And Canada has taken a growing share of US imports (now 60%) even as their import levels have declined.

But there are two risks on the horizon: the first is that oil is a non renewable resource and the US is expected to reach a peak in shale oil production in the next few years. No one wants to go back to the days when OPEC + had dominant market power. I think there will be a lot of demand for Canadian oil to fill the gap left by any decline in US oil production. And Norway’s production is expected to peak imminently as well.

The second is the need from our allies for LNG. Europe is still dependent on Russia for natural gas, energy demand is growing in Asia, and high industrial energy costs are weighing on both. More and cheaper LNG from North America is highly important for the energy security of our allies, and thus the western alliance as it faces a challenge from Russia, China and Iran.

Canada has little choice but to follow the US lead on many issues such as EVs and tariffs on China. Regarding energy policy, does Canada’s relative strength in the oil and gas sector give it a stronger hand when it comes to having an independent energy policy?

I don’t think we want an independent energy policy. I would argue we both benefit from alignment and interdependence. And we’ve built up that interdependence on the infrastructure side over decades: pipelines, refineries, transmission, everything.

That interdependence gives us a stronger hand in other areas of the economy. Any tariffs on Canadian energy would absolutely not be in American’s interests in terms of their energy dominance agenda. Trump wants to drop energy costs, not hike them.

I think we can leverage tariff exemptions in energy to other sectors, such as manufacturing, which is more vulnerable. But you have to make the case for why that makes sense for US, not just Canada. And that’s because we need as much industrial capacity in the west as we can muster to counter China and Russia. America First is fine, but this is not the time for America Alone.

Do you see provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan being more on-side with the US than the federal government when it comes to energy?

Of course. The North American capital that is threatening their economic interests is not Washington DC; it’s Ottawa.

I think you are seeing some recognition – much belated and fast on the heels of an emissions cap that could shut in over 2 million boe of production! – that what makes Canada important to the United States and in the world is our oil and gas and uranium and critical minerals and agricultural products.

We’ve spent almost a decade constraining those sectors. There is no doubt a Trump Admin will be complicated, but at the very least it’s clarified how important those sectors are to our soft and hard power.

It’s not too late for Canada to flex its muscles on the world stage and use its resources to advance our national interests, and our allies’ interests. In fact, it’s absolutely critical that we do so.

Energy

What Will Be the Future of the Keystone XL Pipeline Under President Trump?

Published on November 18, 2024

Todayville

From EnergyNow.ca

By Terry Winnitoy, EnergyNow

The Keystone XL Pipeline, proposed in 2008, was designed to transport Canadian crude oil from Alberta to refineries in the United States, specifically to Steele City, Nebraska, and onward to refineries in Illinois and Texas, as well as to an oil pipeline distribution center in Cushing, Oklahoma.

Spanning approximately 1,179 miles and designed to transport up to 830,000 barrels of oil per day, the pipeline promised significant economic and energy security benefits. However, it became a focal point of political and environmental controversy, leading to its eventual cancellation by Presidents Obama and Biden.

Here’s a brief look at its history, the reasons it should have been built, the political dynamics that led to its cancellation and will President-elect Trump revive it?

Why the Keystone XL Pipeline Should Have Been Built

Economic and Job Creation

The pipeline was projected to create thousands of construction jobs and several hundred permanent jobs, providing a significant boost to the economy. It was also expected to stimulate economic activity through the development of related infrastructure and services.

Energy Security

By facilitating the efficient transport of a large volume of oil from a stable and friendly neighboring country, the pipeline would have reduced American dependence on oil imports from more volatile regions, enhancing national energy security.

Environmental Safety

Pipelines are generally safer and more environmentally friendly for transporting oil compared to rail or truck, with lower risks of spills and accidents. The Keystone XL was designed with the latest technology to minimize leaks and environmental impact.

Regulatory Oversight

The project underwent extensive environmental reviews and was subject to strict regulatory standards to ensure it adhered to environmental protection and safety measures.

Political Reasons for Cancellation

Environmental Activism

The pipeline became a symbol for environmentalists who opposed further development of fossil fuel infrastructure. They argued it would contribute to climate change by enabling the extraction and consumption of oil sands, which are more carbon-intensive than other oil sources.

Obama’s Cancellation

President Obama rejected the pipeline in 2015, citing environmental concerns and its potential impact on global climate change. He argued that approving the pipeline would have undercut America’s leadership on climate change.

Trump’s Reversal and Biden’s Final Cancellation

President Trump revived the project in 2017, citing economic benefits and energy security. However, President Biden canceled it again on his first day in office in 2021, fulfilling a campaign promise to prioritize climate change issues and transition towards renewable energy.

Political Symbolism

For both Obama and Biden, the decision to cancel the Keystone XL Pipeline was also a symbolic gesture, demonstrating a commitment to environmental sustainability and a shift away from fossil fuel dependence in line with their administrations’ climate policies.

Will President-Elect Trump Reinstate It?

Currently, there is no definitive answer on whether President-elect Trump will reinstate the Keystone XL Pipeline. His previous administration showed support for the project, citing its potential economic and energy security benefits. However, reinstating the pipeline would require navigating significant political, legal, and environmental challenges that have developed over the years.

It would also depend on the current geopolitical, economic, and environmental priorities at the time of his taking office. The Keystone XL Pipeline’s history is a complex tapestry of economic aspirations, environmental concerns, and political maneuvers.

Its cancellation has been a contentious issue, reflecting the broader national and global debates over energy policy and climate change strategy. Whether it will be reinstated remains a significant question, contingent on a multitude of factors including political will, environmental policies, and market dynamics.

That all said, re-instating its approval might be the perfect “in your face” moment for Trump to Obama and Biden as he begins his second term of presidency. We’ll have to wait and see.