Energy
No calling in sick or waiting for a nice day – The grid has to perform on the worst of them
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
By Terry Etam
Saturday night, the middle of the cold snap, was something to be endured
Saturday night, the middle of the cold snap, was something to be endured. Things break at -36 degrees. A quick run to the grocery store was rerouted by a fleet of city vehicles tearing up the street in a considerable manner, most likely chasing a broken water main or some such. Imagine being without water on a night like that.
Half an hour later it got worse – the provincial grid operator issued an alert for people to “immediately limit their electrical use to essential needs only.”
Keep in mind the staggering circumstance, and location, of that alert: Alberta. Even the province’s biggest naysayer would have to admit that the province is an energy juggernaut, blessed with resources most of the world can only dream of, including and especially energy.
If power consumption levels were not reduced, there could have been rolling blackouts. Anyone care to imagine what that would have been like at -35 degree temperatures?
Hopefully every single voter in Canada, and the US for that matter, is paying attention. The false prophecies of utopian energy transitions visions are, quite clearly, dangerously false.
The media feeds you dumbed-down pablum; don’t take it at face value. Instead of listening to blathering about “new installed capacity”, pay attention to actual output. In extreme cold, wind and solar output fall to zero, or very close. It doesn’t matter if there are a billion gigawatts of ‘capacity’ installed.
Everyone needs to understand the fundamental issue that was best described by Nassim Taleb via his turkey analogy. A turkey has 364 days of a very good life, followed by one very bad day come Thanksgiving. It is the bad day that matters, not 364 good ones. A deadly day is a deadly day.
It’s the same with renewables penetration, and how it makes the news ‘on the good days’. Activists and simplistic policymakers (but I repeat myself) tout how a particular jurisdiction may have at such and such a time sourced “xx percent” of power from renewables. Yay, look at the progress, marching ever higher. But it’s not what it sounds like. It doesn’t matter if a country or state or province gets 80% of its power from solar at the peak of a good sunny day, nor if 80% comes from wind on a particularly windy day. Those are misleading numbers, because the system must be fully capable of meeting peak demand every day, and not just ‘on a good day’.
According to AESO, the provincial grid operator, Alberta has 4,481 MW of wind power capacity. At the peak of last weekend’s deepfreeze, it was producing about 1/3 of one percent of that total. Not just useless, but far worse: useless when needed exactly the most.
What matters is: how does the system perform at peak times – what is going to show up on demand?
Just like everyone else that’s trying to bring rationality to this conversation, I need also point out that wind and solar are welcome additions, in moderate amounts, sited where they do the least damage, and as supplements to a grid.
But that’s where the conversation needs to get serious. The real danger out there are people that want an energy transition so badly, or are employed as ‘climate architects’ such that their career depends on it, who sweep some mighty big things under the rug.
“We just need more storage, then wind and solar will be able to carry the load.” Not possible, not if batteries are the vision. Imagine a day’s worth of battery power supply for the entire province. Or two days. The cost would be off the charts, and, then after two days of ‘usage’, how would the batteries get recharged if the cold spell persisted more than a few days? Is that the kind of backup anyone would accept? We’ll have power again if the wind picks up strongly and consistently for the next week, if not, well, good luck?
“Sure we can handle an all-EV world because users can charge at night.” I’ve seen this argument now and then, based on some simplistic studies that show, correctly, that financial enticements can get people to charge EVs at off peak hours. But that’s a red herring in the world we are headed for, “electrify everything”. If we do electrify even half of what we could, then peak demand will still go way up, as will our life-perched dependency on it. More EVs just mean more load. And not all EVs will shift to night charging; it is some pretty weak thinking to imagine that all EV owners will have that optionality, or live in a place that allows it, or won’t be travelling, etc. And remember that the feds’ plan is for all vehicles to be electrified. So maybe J. Consumer in suburbia can shift his EV to night charging, but what about a fleet of city buses, or Uber drivers, or forklifts, or taxis, or…the list is endless.
“We can switch to heat pumps.” This one takes the cake. Heat pumps will exacerbate the problem at the exact worst time – when it is coldest, and when power demand is highest, and when the grid is maxed out. It is the opposite of proponents who say EVs can charge at off peak hours – heat pumps will be called into full service precisely at peak hours. Taleb’s turkey again: a mass-heat-pump system will be wonderful on many days, but on the very worst day, all goes black. And cold.
There is no joy in this silly debate we seem to be in with ideologues, particularly when the threat of rolling blackouts is announced by the grid operator. But there is also no time to waste indulging people who want to rewire the grid with “well academic studies say this should work.” Set up your own commune somewhere and experiment for a few years and at least one winter cold snap, then let us know how it goes.
Wishful thinking doesn’t turn many wrenches, nor does it heat homes. Wishful thinking is not what an energy system can or should be built on. Energy is life or death in extreme weather. Ideology is the last thing that should be involved in energy supply, and yet we are up to our ears in it, a situation that is becoming dangerous.
People can see this. They may not understand how grids (and energy) work, but they know when something smells bad. That’s why federal government support is at such lows, and why distrust in the media is at such highs. Political scientists telling you “Don’t worry, we know how to design a new grid” are no match for the likes of, for example, real-world experiences such as this relayed by a gentleman named John Wright on LinkedIn: “Currently out at our cabin trying to help out our heat pumps (we run three geothermal units and they are running full out with auxiliary/ supplemental heating coils engaged). We have two propane fireplaces burning full time in addition to all the firewood that we’re also splitting and burning, and all of the burners on the cooktop are on. It’s probably about +12.5° C inside here vs -36°C outside…Everyone seems to ignore the fact that heat pumps are a huge draw on the power grid. Our power bill could easily be $1500.00 to $2000.00 for January…By the way, the power consumption and poor performance is the same in the summer when it is +36°C here.”
And finally, it is important to note that the gradual but persistent undermining of the hydrocarbon industry will have massive consequences, because hydrocarbons underpin everything we use and do. Governmental and media animosity will drive away capital (don’t wonder why dividends are such a popular thing in the oil and gas sector – capital flight in full view) and ultimately weaken a pillar of our economy. Until nuclear energy is ubiquitous, or some technological breakthrough happens, we need reliable, baseload power, which at this time in history means hydrocarbons, here and around the world. That baseload is not guaranteed, it is not a right, it is not going to be sustained if capital is chased away from it.
Voters, it’s up to you. Demand more from your politicians, but also demand better conversations from the entire energy industry as well. We owe you that.
Terry Etam is a columnist with the BOE Report, a leading energy industry newsletter based in Calgary. He is the author of The End of Fossil Fuel Insanity. You can watch his Policy on the Frontier session from May 5, 2022 here.
Business
Trump’s oil tariffs could spell deficits for Alberta government
From the Fraser Institute
By Tegan Hill
After recently meeting with president-elect Donald Trump, Premier Danielle Smith warned that Trump’s tariffs could include oil. That’s just one more risk factor added to Alberta’s already precarious fiscal situation, which could mean red ink in the near future.
Trump has threatened a 25 per cent tariff on Canadian goods, which includes oil, and could come as early as January 20 when he’s sworn in as president. Such tariffs would likely widen the price differential between U.S. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil and Alberta’s Western Canadian select (WCS) heavy oil.
In other words, the average price difference between Canadian oil (WCS) and U.S. oil (WTI) could increase, reflecting a larger discount on Canadian oil. According to the Alberta government’s estimate, every $1 that WCS is sold at discount is a $600 million hit to the government’s budget.
To maintain its $4.6 billion projected budget surplus this fiscal year (2024/25), the Smith government is banking on oil prices (WTI) averaging US$74.00 per barrel in 2024/25. But every $1 decline in oil prices leads to a $630 million swing in Alberta’s bottom line. And WTI has dropped as low as US$67.00 per barrel in recent months.
Put simply, Trump’s proposed tariffs would flip Alberta’s budget surplus to a budget deficit, particularly if paired with lower oil prices.
While Smith has been aggressively trying to engage with lawmakers in the United States regarding the tariffs and the inclusion of oil, there’s not much she can do in the short-run to mitigate the effects if Trump’s tariff plan becomes a reality. But the Smith government can still help stabilize Alberta’s finances over the longer term. The key is spending restraint.
For decades, Alberta governments have increased spending when resource revenues were relatively high, as they are today, but do not commensurately reduce spending when resource revenues inevitably decline, which results in periods of persistent budget deficits and debt accumulation. And Albertans already pay approximately $650 each in provincial government debt interest each year.
To its credit, the Smith government has recognized the risk of financing ongoing spending with onetime windfalls in resource revenue and introduced a rule to limit increases in operating spending (e.g. spending on annual items such as government employee compensation) to the rate of population growth and inflation. Unfortunately, the government’s current plan for restraint is starting from a higher base level of spending (compared to its original plan) due to spending increases over the past two years.
Indeed, the government will spend a projected $1,603 more per Albertan (inflation-adjusted) this fiscal year than the Smith government originally planned in its 2022 mid-year budget update. And higher spending means the government has increased its reliance on volatile resource revenue—not reduced it. Put simply, Smith’s plan to grow spending below the rate of inflation and population growth isn’t enough to avoid budget deficits—more work must be done to rein in high spending.
Trump’s tariffs could help plunge Alberta back into deficit. To help stabilize provincial finances over the longer term, the Smith government should focus on what it can control—and that means reining in spending.
Tegan Hill
Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute
Alberta
Why U.S. tariffs on Canadian energy would cause damage on both sides of the border
Marathon Petroleum’s Detroit refinery in the U.S. Midwest, the largest processing area for Canadian crude imports. Photo courtesy Marathon Petroleum
From the Canadian Energy Centre
More than 450,000 kilometres of pipelines link Canada and the U.S. – enough to circle the Earth 11 times
As U.S. imports of Canadian oil barrel through another new all-time high, leaders on both sides of the border are warning of the threat to energy security should the incoming Trump administration apply tariffs on Canadian oil and gas.
“We would hope any future tariffs would exclude these critical feedstocks and refined products,” Chet Thompson, CEO of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), told Politico’s E&E News.
AFPM’s members manufacture everything from gasoline to plastic, dominating a sector with nearly 500 operating refineries and petrochemical plants across the United States.
“American refiners depend on crude oil from Canada and Mexico to produce the affordable, reliable fuels consumers count on every day,” Thompson said.
The United States is now the world’s largest oil producer, but continues to require substantial imports – to the tune of more than six million barrels per day this January, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).
Nearly 70 per cent of that oil came from Canada.
Many U.S. refineries are set up to process “heavy” crude like what comes from Canada and not “light” crude like what basins in the United States produce.
“New tariffs on [Canadian] crude oil, natural gas, refined products, or critical input materials that cannot be sourced domestically…would directly undermine energy affordability and availability for consumers,” the American Petroleum Institute, the industry’s largest trade association, wrote in a recent letter to the United States Trade Representative.
More than 450,000 kilometres of oil and gas pipelines link Canada and the United States – enough to circle the Earth 11 times.
The scale of this vast, interconnected energy system does not exist anywhere else. It’s “a powerful card to play” in increasingly unstable times, researchers with S&P Global said last year.
Twenty-five years from now, the United States will import virtually exactly the same amount of oil as it does today (7.0 million barrels per day in 2050 compared to 6.98 million barrels per day in 2023), according to the EIA’s latest outlook.
“We are interdependent on energy. Americans cutting off Canadian energy would be like cutting off their own arm,” said Heather Exner-Pirot, a special advisor to the Business Council of Canada.
Trump’s threat to apply a 25 per cent tariff on imports from Canada, including energy, would likely “result in lower production in Canada and higher gasoline and energy costs to American consumers while threatening North American energy security,” Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers CEO Lisa Baiton said in a statement.
“We must do everything in our power to protect and preserve this energy partnership.”
Energy products are Canada’s single largest export to the United States, accounting for about a third of total Canadian exports to the U.S., energy analysts Rory Johnston and Joe Calnan noted in a November report for the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.
The impact of applying tariffs to Canadian oil would likely be spread across Canada and the United States, they wrote: higher pump prices for U.S. consumers, weaker business for U.S. refiners and reduced returns for Canadian producers.
“It is vitally important for Canada to underline that it is not just another trade partner, but rather an indispensable part of the economic and security apparatus of the United States,” Johnston and Calnan wrote.
-
Uncategorized2 days ago
Taxpayers Federation calling on BC Government to scrap failed Carbon Tax
-
Business2 days ago
Report: Chinese government considering sale of TikTok to Elon Musk, possible X merger
-
Daily Caller2 days ago
Trump Could Put An End To Biden’s Offshore Wind Vanity Projects
-
Daily Caller2 days ago
US Ally’s Approach To Handling Drones Over Military Bases Is Vastly Different From Biden Admin
-
Business23 hours ago
Donald Trump appoints Mel Gibson, Sylvester Stallone as special ambassadors to Hollywood
-
Business2 days ago
Conservatives demand Brookfield Asset Management reveal Mark Carney’s compensation
-
Bruce Dowbiggin1 day ago
No, Really. Carney Is An Outsider. And Libs Are Done
-
Alberta1 day ago
Why U.S. tariffs on Canadian energy would cause damage on both sides of the border