Largest continuous oil and gas resource potential ever

[PandaBear]

Interesting info, thanks both OVERKILL and Shannow.

What is interesting is, it seems like these cost are very different depends on where the plants / panels are at, and when they were build. I wonder having a 1984 CANDU compare to a solar that got paid 41c/kwh (likely a pre Chinese solar boom solar) in Canada can really correlate to today. I remember seeing solar costing 3.5c/kwh in utliity scale (according to google) vs a nuke costing 9.9c/kwh (http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx).

Still wondering why would they put solar in Canada instead of, say, Arizona and California.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by PandaBear
Interesting info, thanks both OVERKILL and Shannow.

What is interesting is, it seems like these cost are very different depends on where the plants / panels are at, and when they were build. I wonder having a 1984 CANDU compare to a solar that got paid 41c/kwh (likely a pre Chinese solar boom solar) in Canada can really correlate to today. I remember seeing solar costing 3.5c/kwh in utliity scale (according to google) vs a nuke costing 9.9c/kwh (http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx).

Still wondering why would they put solar in Canada instead of, say, Arizona and California.


Yes, the costs definitely vary depending on where they are.

- That solar farm was built in 2011 if that helps with the timeline? A big problem is the CF in Canada, a 16% CF for a commercial farm means that rooftop is even worse

- When calculating how cheap/expensive solar is you use CAPEX and then using CF, you can then determine the rate needed to recoup that CAPEX over the anticipated duration. The higher the CF, the lower the kWh rate needs to be to recover the CAPEX.

- $0.099/kWh for new build Nuclear would be based on several assumptions including amortization period and CF. You'll note in that link they assume an 85% CF, US plants are significantly higher than that. They also typically use a 20 year payback schedule, where they could use a 30.

- Also of note specific to CANDU's: They use unenriched Uranium, so enrichment cost doesn't factor into our fuel costs.


Why would they build solar in Canada? Optics and perception. Both wind and solar are viewed as clean, green energy, despite the economics not necessarily working at this latitude, and when you are trying to win an election, putting support behind technologies that are easy to rally support for makes sense. So even if you end up screwing your ratepayers; the very people that voted in that platform, it's still an easy one to sell.

While Engineers and the folks that ran our grid were going NO NO NO NO NO, the Government was going YES YES YES YES YES! So, instead of a new nuke plant, which is what OPG wanted to build, we ended up with the Green Energy Act, which foisted highly subsidized contracts for privately owned VRE on the ratepayers, the distribution company as well as the operator, who then had to try and make this disaster work. Short version: a new nuke would have been a [censored] of a lot cheaper.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by PandaBear
Interesting info, thanks both OVERKILL and Shannow.

What is interesting is, it seems like these cost are very different depends on where the plants / panels are at, and when they were build. I wonder having a 1984 CANDU compare to a solar that got paid 41c/kwh (likely a pre Chinese solar boom solar) in Canada can really correlate to today. I remember seeing solar costing 3.5c/kwh in utliity scale (according to google) vs a nuke costing 9.9c/kwh (http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx).

Still wondering why would they put solar in Canada instead of, say, Arizona and California.


Investors building private solar (in Oz), put them where they
a) have easy access to transmission
b) obviously get the most, and most reliable sun.

Govts and Greens put them in other places for political effect....places that they can have a grand opening, and have large numbers of people drive past every day, not necessarily the best location....there's one lik that in our Capital Territory....the locals LOVE how green they feel driving past it (I know, my family there raves about it).

Also keep in mind that the capacity factor of a Nuke is 80-85%...so a 1,000MW nuke, on it's daily profile will put out 0.8*1000*24 (19,000) MWh in a day, and importantly, 1,000MW at the morning and evening peaks.

Solar has a capacity factor of 25%, as there's only so much daylight, and it's intensity changes over the day...so it puts out 6,000MWh in a day, but importantly misses the evening peak, and is umping out maximum effort at mid-day, which is usually 60-70% of the faily peak load...forcing everything else to back off more.

So to get the same daily energy, you need 4 times the nameplate capacity of solar, and somewhere to put the daily load until needed at peak and over night.

I'm not discounting how cheap solar IS when it's a disruptor...but in a world that relies on renewables, you need 4 times nameplate, and batteries.
4x3.5+$0.25 (Lazards Levelised cost of storage, the amortisation rate required on a Li power scale battery) makes a $0.39 KWh

BTW, in Oz market, the solars bid in at -$1,000 per MWh (-$1/KWh)meaning that they get access first...but they get paid for the most expensive MW on the grid.

For the last 2 years they are getting 8.5c/Kwh average for their -%1 bid

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by Shannow

Also keep in mind that the capacity factor of a Nuke is 80-85%...so a 1,000MW nuke, on it's daily profile will put out 0.8*1000*24 (19,000) MWh in a day, and importantly, 1,000MW at the morning and evening peaks.

Solar has a capacity factor of 25%, as there's only so much daylight, and it's intensity changes over the day...so it puts out 6,000MWh in a day, but importantly misses the evening peak, and is umping out maximum effort at mid-day, which is usually 60-70% of the faily peak load...forcing everything else to back off more.


I think that these two statements are important to consider for the following reasons:

- In recent years, as nukes have vied to be more competitive in the market, CF has gone up. US plants have been able to shorten their refuel times, driving CF up over 90%. CANDU Plants refuel online, so being above 90% CF isn't overly difficult. We've had reactors run for years straight, record held at Pickering was 894 days. Unit 8 at Bruce holds their site record at 623 days.

- Solar CF is directly tied to time of year and geography. While we typically cite average CF, there is a significant seasonal impact factor. If you are relying on solar to run heat, this is important. The indicated 25% CF is significantly higher than what we see here in southern Ontario which averages at around 16%.

So while a nuke, through operating efficiencies, can increase its CF, and through upgrades, can increase overall output, both of which are already incredibly high to begin with, a solar farm will only ever degrade over its lifespan. Its best output will be shortly after it is installed and it will continually, slowly, decline until the panels need replacement.

 

[Shannow]

OVERKILL
I was in a meeting with the market operator the other week.

Statement was made
"We always had to use weather to model demand, and plan accordingly
Now we have to use the weather to model supply as well."

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by Shannow
OVERKILL
I was in a meeting with the market operator the other week.

Statement was made
"We always had to use weather to model demand, and plan accordingly
Now we have to use the weather to model supply as well."


Twice the work and the perpetual need for standby in case that supply vaporizes. It's a new dawn and I don't think operators are anywhere near as keen on it as the politicians pushing it for brownie points.

 

[ZZman]

Will extracting it cause more earthquakes, sink holes and water contamination?

 

[Shannow]

 

[Rmay635703]

Originally Posted by ZZman
Will extracting it cause more earthquakes, sink holes and water contamination?


Maybe, maybe, yes

But high capacity water wells are to blame for most southern sinkholes
after we run out of fossilized water that feeds our industrial ag welcome dust bowls and saline contamination, yeah

Sometimes learning is hard.

 

[clinebarger]

Originally Posted by ZZman
Will extracting it cause more earthquakes, sink holes and water contamination?


Nobody lives there......

I live right on the edge of the Barnett Shale, I get a pretty good royalty check because I own several lots on a producing outcrop. I had to fight Chesapeake off for 2 years over wanting to lease my mineral rights. Most in my area don't own the mineral rights to their property.