Energy
One (Megawatt) is the loneliest number, but hundreds of batteries are absurd
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
That comes out to $104,000,000,000, in batteries, alone, to cover those 18 hours on Feb. 8. To make it easier on you, $104 billion. If you use Smith’s numbers, it’s $80.6 billion. Even if I’m out by a factor of two, it’s an obscene amount of money.
SaskPower Minister Dustin Duncan recently told me I watch electricity markets like some people watch fantasy football. I would agree with him, if I knew anything about fantasy football.
I had some time to kill around noon on Feb. 8, and I checked out the minute-by-minute updates from the Alberta Electric System Operator. What I saw for wind power production was jaw-dropping to say the least. Alberta has built 45 wind farms with hundreds of wind turbines totalling an installed capacity of 4,481 megawatts.
My usual threshold for writing a story about this is output falling to less than one per cent – 45 megawatts. Its output at 11:07 a.m., Alberta time, in megawatts?
“1”
Ten minutes later:
“1”
30 minutes later:
“1”
How long can this last? Is there a fault with the website? There doesn’t seem to be.
12:07 p.m.
“1”
Strains of “One is the loneliest number” flow through my head.
I’ve seen it hit one before briefly. Even zero for a minute or two. But this keeps going. And going. I keep taking screenshots. How long will this last?
1:07 p.m.
“1”
1:29 p.m.
“1”
Finally, there’s a big change at 2:38. The output has doubled.
“2.”
That’s 2.5 hours at one. How long will two last?
3:45 p.m.
“2”
4:10 p.m. – output quadruples – to a whopping eight megawatts.
It ever-so-slowly crept up from there. Ten hours after I started keeping track, total wind output had risen to 39 megawatts – still not even one per cent of rated output. Ten hours.
It turns out that wind fell below one per cent around 5 a.m., and stayed under that for 18 hours.
Building lots of turbines doesn’t work
The argument has long been if it’s not blowing here, it’s blowing somewhere. Build enough turbines, spread them all over, and you should always have at least some wind power. But Alberta’s wind turbines are spread over an area larger than the Benelux countries, and they still had essentially zero wind for 18 hours. Shouldn’t 45 wind farms be enough geographic distribution?
The other argument is to build lots and lots of batteries. Use surplus renewable power to charge them, and then when the wind isn’t blowing (or sun isn’t shining), draw power from the batteries.
Alberta has already built 10 grid-scale batteries. Nine of those are the eReserve fleet, each 20 megawatt Tesla systems. I haven’t been able to find the price of those, but SaskPower is building a 20 megawatt Tesla system on the east side of Regina, and its price is $26 million.
From over a year’s frequent observation, it’s apparent that the eReserve batteries only put out a maximum of 20 megawatts for about an hour before they’re depleted. They can run longer at lower outputs, but I haven’t seen anything to show they could get two or five hours out of the battery at full power. And SaskPower’s press release explains its 20 megawatt Tesla system has about 20 megawatts-hours of power. This corresponds very closely to remarks made by Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, along with the price of about $1 million per megawatt hour for grid-scale battery capacity.
She said in late October, “I want to talk about batteries for a minute, because I know that everybody thinks that this economy is going to be operated on wind and solar and battery power — and it cannot. There is no industrialized economy in the world operating that way, because they need baseload. And, I’ll tell you what I know about batteries, because I talked to somebody thinking of investing in it on a 200-megawatt plant. One million dollars to be able to get each megawatt stored: that’s 200 million dollars for his plant alone, and he would get one hour of storage. So if you want me to have 12 thousand megawatts of storage, that’s 12 billion dollars for one hour of storage, 24 billion dollars for two hours of storage, 36 billion dollars for three hours of storage, and there are long stretches in winter, where we can go weeks without wind or solar. That is the reason why we need legitimate, real solutions that rely on baseload power rather than fantasy thinking.”
So let’s do some math to see if the premier is on the money.
If you wanted enough batteries to output the equivalent of the 4,481 megawatts of wind for one hour (minus the 1 megawatt it was producing), that’s 4480 megawatts / 20 megawatts per battery = 224 batteries like those in the eReserve fleet. But remember, they can only output their full power for about an hour. So the next hour, you need another 224, and so on. For 18 hours, you need 4032 batteries. Let’s be generous and subtract the miniscule wind production over that time, and round it to 4,000 batteries, at $26 million a pop. (Does Tesla offer bulk discounts?)
That comes out to $104,000,000,000, in batteries, alone, to cover those 18 hours on Feb. 8. To make it easier on you, $104 billion. If you use Smith’s numbers, it’s $80.6 billion. Even if I’m out by a factor of two, it’s an obscene amount of money.
But wait, there’s more!
You would also need massive amounts of transmission infrastructure to power and tie in those batteries. I’m not even going to count the dollars for that.
But you also need the surplus power to charge all those batteries. The Alberta grid, like most grids, runs with a four per cent contingency, as regulated by NERC. Surplus power is often sold to neighbours. And there’s been times, like mid-January, where that was violated, resulting in a series of grid alerts.
At times when there’s lots of wind and solar on the grid, there’s up to around 900 megawatts being sold to B.C and other neighbours. But for 18 hours (not days, but hours), you need 4,000 batteries * 20 megawatt-hours per battery = 80,000 megawatt hours. Assuming 100 per cent efficiency in charging (which is against the laws of physics, but work with me here), if you had a consistent 900 megawatts of surplus power, it would take 89 hours to charge them (if they could charge that fast, which is unlikely).
That’s surplus power you are not selling to an external client, meaning you’re not taking in any extra revenue, and they might not be getting the power they need. And having 900 megawatts is the exception here. It’s much more like 300 megawatts surplus. So your perfect 89 hours to charge becomes 267 hours (11.1 days), all to backfill 18 hours of essentially no wind power.
This all assumes at you’ve had sufficient surplus power to charge your batteries, that days or weeks of low wind and/or solar don’t deplete your reserves, and the length of time they are needed does not exceed your battery capacity.
Nor does it figure in how many years life are you going to get out of those batteries in the first place? How many charge cycles before you have to recapitalize the whole fleet?
For the dollars we’re talking here, you’re easily better off to four (or more) Westinghouse AP-1000 reactors, with 1,100 megawatts capacity each. Their uptime should be somewhere around 90 per cent.
Or maybe coal could be renewed – built with the most modern technology like high efficiency, low emissions (HELE), with integrated carbon capture from Day 1. How many HELE coal-fired power plants, with carbon capture and storage, could you build for either $80 billion or $104 billion? Certainly more than 4,481 megawatts worth.
Building either nuclear or HELE coal gives you solid, consistent baseload power, without the worry of the entire fleet going down, like wind did in Alberta on Feb. 8, as well as Feb. 4, 5, 6, and 7.
Indeed, according to X bot account @ReliableAB, which does hourly tracking of the Alberta grid, from Feb. 5 to 11:15 a.m., Feb. 9, Alberta wind output averaged 3.45 per cent of capacity. So now instead of 18 hours, we’re talking 108 hours needing 96+ per cent to be backfilled. I don’t have enough brain power to figure it out.
You can argue we only need to backfill X amount of wind, maybe 25 per cent, since you can’t count on wind to ever produce 100 per cent of its nameplate across the fleet. But Alberta has thousands more megawatts of wind on tap to be built as soon as the province lifts is pause on approvals. If they build all of it, maybe the numbers I provide will indeed be that 25 per cent. Who knows? The point is all of this is ludicrous.
Just build reliable, baseload power, with peaking capacity. And end this foolishness.
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].
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.
-
Uncategorized1 day ago
Taxpayers Federation calling on BC Government to scrap failed Carbon Tax
-
Alberta1 day ago
Why U.S. tariffs on Canadian energy would cause damage on both sides of the border
-
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
-
Business20 hours ago
Donald Trump appoints Mel Gibson, Sylvester Stallone as special ambassadors to Hollywood
-
Business1 day 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