GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,133]

16 hours ago, notsonice said:

You obviously have  never been to California. Yes you should go back to the first grade

Ah, so, you are saying no one in California can pass 1st grade math.  Judging by your competence, you are correct.

[Ron Wagner + 647]

On 3/10/2022 at 12:45 AM, Jay McKinsey said:

So there are these things called batteries. Soon the US will be installing more battery capacity than natural gas.

Not all countries clean up their messes. 

 

How soon?

Edited March 11, 2022 by Ron Wagner
reference

[Ron Wagner + 647]

7 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Ron have you gone blind mate?

 

7 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Ron have you gone blind mate?

I think the Renault made car is very nice looking, not he others. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,133]

5 hours ago, kshithij Sharma said:

Do you understand the quantity of batteries needed to support the needs? Currently USA consumed about 12TWh of electricity per day. Taking the non-hydro renewables to be 50% of the energy generation with capacity of 33% while 67% is fluctuating/non-generating time, we get the following figures:

Generation: 6TWh/day
Directly usable: 2TWh
Battery capacity needed: 4TWh

For 50% of the grid replacement using your numbers, no, the battery capacity is not 4TWh.  It is much much much higher.

Weather(storms) or Winter continent wide highs(no wind + snow = crusted solar panels) = no wind/solar for several DAYS and upwards of a week down south to WEEKS up north.  Bordered by weeks of near zero output due to haze, etc.  So, this by itself multiplies total required by a factor of 10X or so.  We are replacing 50% of the grid after all, so it has to work in ALL conditions, not perfect conditions and no there will not be giant coal/nuclear/NG power plants sitting around to save your solar/wind/battery ass at 50% of the grid.

Start with you do not use 100% of battery capacity.  How long is this supposed to last?  How many cycles @ 365 a year, so if you want 10,000 cycles and a ~30 year life expectancy, then you can only use ~30% of capacity with Lithium Iron Phosphate.  3X increase in "capacity".  If you want 20,000 cycles then we need to use less than 15%.  Unless you are proposing flow batteries which you will note NO ONE has said what their throughput efficiency is. I'll bet they are all less than 70%. 

Conversion inefficiency = 10%    = 1.1X 

Down due to maintenance is ~1% assuming one can swap out the 3% battery retirement every year in 3 months per battery train to correct voltage.  Personally I think you could swap it out faster and my 1% assumes this as one also has other maintenance issues.  I could even envision a battery with hot swappable capability(it already exists) and this could be in effect ~0% if done correctly. 

Battery self discharge is another ~5%/month, lets assume we store 1 weeks worth so 1%

So, 4TWh * 10*3*1.1*1.01 = 133TWh of battery capacity

Not bad, you are only off by over ~30X...

Edited March 10, 2022 by footeab@yahoo.com
too much snark

[kshithij Sharma + 78]

2 hours ago, Boat said:

Once again more misinformation that can be fixed if you just google. For a couple of decades nat gas reserves were around 200 trillion cubic feet. Over the next 20 years nat gas reserves have more than doubled to 490. Don’t be bringing that crap in here. Know your data. 

Yes, but that was operational reserves. The current natural gas production is from shale fields and nearby associated/independent gas fields. I am definitely sure of exact oil reserves but when it comes to gas, I admit that I may be off. Nevertheless, it is still true that gas is gar less than coal reserves by a big margin.

2 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

The UK is to have 20% hydrogen mixed into the NG pipelines for homes and factories for direct use from 2023/2024. These pipelines are all being upgraded where they need to to prevent any leakage. Are you saying that NG pipelines just leak NG everywhere? There is going to be a large demand for green hydrogen production as 20% is a very ambitious number to try to achieve. There will be no storage requirement as it will be used immediately for heating and cooking.

NG does not leak but hydrogen leaks. This is because hydrogen is a very small molecule that can simply leak through the inter-atomic/interstitial space of metals, containers etc. Blending 20% hydrogen to NG may reduce the leak by 80% (as 80% is NG) but it is going to be a herculean and near impossible feat to extract, compress and transport hydrogen just like that without any storage.

2 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

The US has way more than 15 years of natural gas (just as it has 100's of years of coal) the reason why this doesn't show up in proved reserves is the way they are calculated.  Basically the way the rules in the US work, unless there are already wells there on production, or capable of being perforated uphole (reserves behind pipe) then they don't count.  It's an extremely conservative formulation mainly set up to ensure that it provides a safe lending base for banks.  In reality, the amounts which are reasonably accessible by drilling more wells is MUCH greater - perhaps an order of magnitude greater.  However due to physical limits on how much gas the US economy can use, and how much it can export, those wells don't get drilled until the existing ones start to slow down production somewhat.  This means that there is functionally a 'forever' renewal of the reserves until the inventory of drillable targets goes down.  

This method of reserves estimation was conservative, but not bad with conventional oil and gas fields,  but its' not very useful at all with continuous plays like oil and gas shales.  This is because the productive area is VAST - in the US alone, the Marcellus gas play covers an area of 95,000 square miles (~ 250,000 square kilometers) an area about the size of the United Kingdom. And that is only one of several natural gas production areas, and not even the largest or most important (that's the Haynesville)   You simply aren't going to drill all those wells all at once 'just because'.  You want and drill them when there is an actual need for the gas.  These fields are so large they are still in the early stages of development.  

I know how USA intentionally underestimates reserves to make it appear low in global view. USA is extracting gas at 35TCF which is more or less a forced option for extracting shale oil. Now, it may be that there is still 200-300TCF of gas but at the rate of production, it is still 6-9 years, far less than coal. Even if I extend the gas depletion timeline from 2035 to 2045-50, it still warrants a replacement plan in a matter of 2 decades

9 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

You uh, need to go back to fifth grade and relearn fractions.

Using YOUR numbers.... arbitrary 50% of 12TWh... = 6TWh... yea team... 

Fluctuation/non generating time = DAYS, not just nights.  It is NOT 33% or 67% or whatever other number you wish to use it is ZERO, de nada, zilch, 0%.    Now add winter.  During winter High over a continent in scale(happens every winter over the big land masses world wide), you get ZERO wind(less than 5%) and if you are lucky upwards of 15% of your solar capacity if you have removed the snow....

Lets assume we live in a perfect world where all you have to worry about is night.  In this world, are we using electric vehicles and Heating/AC instead of gas/NG?  If so, then night time power requirements will easily equal day time current electric demands. 

Now back to fractions...  6TWh.... to get this at your stated 33% capacity factor(solar comes nowhere close so why did you pick this?), you need 6TWh / 1/3 = 18TWh of capacity. 

As for battery capacity even assuming night is 50% of peak(its not seasons change and the world is not desert sunny California), you will still need a steady 3TWh in the winter time all night long for even a perfect sunny condition without clouds or panel degredation, battery degredation, conversion inefficiencies of

3TWh*16 hours = 48TWh

NOT 4 TWh. 

Not bad for a fumblefingers utopian.  Only off by 12X using utopian numbers. 

I am just giving a best case scenario to show how even the best case is hopeless for battery storage. You seem to be in a hurry to discredit me and are missing on basic school level maths. Now, I admit that being from India, I am not used to snow, long winters, long nights etc and may at times skip thinking about such things altogether, but I do know that I have to add sufficient buffers and contingency for natural calamity damage, seasonality and maintenance measures which I excluded as I wanted to present a best case scenario.

Firstly, the 33% capacity means that out of any given day, I expect renewable energy to be supplying energy needs of 8 hours (high wind, sunny time etc) without needing battery with additional surplus to be stored while in the rest 16hours (cloud, 0 wind, maintenance etc) the renewables will need battery to augment its generation to meet the needs. This is why I made the assumption of 66% battery backup. Also, my 8 hour figure is by using combined wind and solar power generation. Solar typically works for4 - 6 hours a day only but Wind works throughout and hence combined can give 8 hour supply. Of course, the amount of solar panels and windmills have to be installed in excess quantity by a factor of 3-4 as they rarely generate peak capacity. But I am taking a scenario where there are enough renewable capacity and the only problematic factors is the fluctuation in wind and solar radiation (as I said - best case)

About why I chose only 50% of electricity by renewables is because I expected rest 50% to be from nuclear, coal, hydro etc which would still continue. The only things that are to be substituted is gas as gas has far less reserves than uranium or coal. Currently USA generates 40% by gas and 10% by non-hydro renewables. Replacing all the gas, we get 50% renewables.

 

Even in this best case, the battery capacity needed is 2000 times of what is there currently for just 50% of total electricity generation. To make things worse, these batteries need replacement 4-5 years, making it unfeasible by a big margin. If one has to consider long winters, snowfalls etc, then still it won't change the picture - batteries are unfeasible

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,133]

6 minutes ago, kshithij Sharma said:

 Replacing all the gas, we get 50% renewables.

Even in this best case, the battery capacity needed is 2000 times of what is there currently for just 50% of total electricity generation. To make things worse, these batteries need replacement 4-5 years, making it unfeasible by a big margin. If one has to consider long winters, snowfalls etc, then still it won't change the picture - batteries are unfeasible

Uh, I fumble fingered my calc 😆🤯

I redid it.  It is worse than 12X... it is >>30X

Batteries last longer than lead acid civilian garbage purposfully designed to fail every 4-5yrs.   Lead acid will easily go far beyond 30 years when designed correctly as used by telephone companies.  LiFePo are currently best and can easily hit 20,000 cycles at ~15% of discharge 10,000(30 yrs) cycles if ~30% discharge. 

PS: India especially during monsoon season, for weeks at a time will get near ZERO solar/wind

PPS: If everyone goes electric vehicles, then night time energy requirements will massively increase to about equal that of daily averages and it becomes FAR worse industrially where majority of NG/Coal is used for heating 24/7.  This last aspect alone will massively massively increase amount of electricity required and battery capacity required.

[Eric Gagen + 713]

25 minutes ago, kshithij Sharma said:

Yes, but that was operational reserves. The current natural gas production is from shale fields and nearby associated/independent gas fields. I am definitely sure of exact oil reserves but when it comes to gas, I admit that I may be off. Nevertheless, it is still true that gas is gar less than coal reserves by a big margin.

NG does not leak but hydrogen leaks. This is because hydrogen is a very small molecule that can simply leak through the inter-atomic/interstitial space of metals, containers etc. Blending 20% hydrogen to NG may reduce the leak by 80% (as 80% is NG) but it is going to be a herculean and near impossible feat to extract, compress and transport hydrogen just like that without any storage.

I know how USA intentionally underestimates reserves to make it appear low in global view. USA is extracting gas at 35TCF which is more or less a forced option for extracting shale oil. Now, it may be that there is still 200-300TCF of gas but at the rate of production, it is still 6-9 years, far less than coal. Even if I extend the gas depletion timeline from 2035 to 2045-50, it still warrants a replacement plan in a matter of 2 decades

SNIP

cutting off the bit about batteries.

You misunderstand the magnitude of the amount of gas available in the US by a wide margin.  Current reserves are ~ 550 TCF.  The 15 years figure you cited.  When I said 'order of magnitude' I meant it somewhat more literally - not 15 years of gas production left at current rates, but somewhere in the range of 70 years. That's not reserves in the range of 'maybe it will last til 2050.  That's reserves in the range of - let's not worry about it - this technology will be obsolete before we have to worry about running out.  https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=58&t=8#:~:text=The U.S. Energy Information Administration,gas in the United States.

The reference case is that by 2050 the US will be producing ~ 45 TCF of gas a day based on current expectations https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=13-AEO2021&region=0-0&cases=highmacro&start=2019&end=2050&f=A&linechart=ref2021-d113020a.3-13-AEO2021&map=&ctype=linechart&sourcekey=0

Personally I am a little skeptical - I believe that a fair bit of the current natural gas demand will be superseded by technologies currently being deployed, but we will see in a few years!  

Another key point of note is that in an assessment from 20 years ago, about 90% of the current proved reserves AND technically recoverable reserves didn't exist - in fact they hadn't even been assessed for potential - new technologies for drilling and completion made that possible 

Edited March 10, 2022 by Eric Gagen

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 hour ago, Ron Wagner said:

How soon?

2 years

[Ron Wagner + 647]

30 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

2 years

2 years to sell more new EVs than ICE vehicles? Does that include hybrids? 

I think it would take more time than that because many people would wait to see how gasoline prices change.  For me, I would like a plug in hybrid but may never need a new car. I still have the Maverick in mind but would sell my big 12 seat van. The Maverick is as you told me not a plug in. I had seen a picture of one that had been considered for production. I may just wait and watch the state of the art evolve. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

9 hours ago, kshithij Sharma said:

Do you understand the quantity of batteries needed to support the needs? Currently USA consumed about 12TWh of electricity per day. Taking the non-hydro renewables to be 50% of the energy generation with capacity of 33% while 67% is fluctuating/non-generating time, we get the following figures:

Generation: 6TWh/day
Directly usable: 2TWh
Battery capacity needed: 4TWh

Currently, USA has only 2GWh of battery capacity (1.6GWh commercial and 0.4GWh private): https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=49236#:~:text=Large-scale U.S. battery system,a 30% increase from 2018.

What you are suggesting is to increase the battery capacity by 2000 times and that is to meet 50% of the energy needs. Don't you think it is a bit far fetched?

We need  1 or 2 TWh of batteries. Batteries are for hourly or daily load shifting. Green hydrogen, compressed air, etc. will be used for longer duration storage.

Typical of you fossil fools you are using old data (from 2019) and trying to pass it off as current. The USA now has: Measured in energy, utility-scale BESS capacity quadrupled to 10.8 GWh over the course of last year. https://www.energy-storage.news/utility-scale-energy-storage-in-us-tripled-in-2021-while-growth-of-other-clean-energy-stalled/

The battery project pipeline today is several times as much over the next few years. Tesla's new grid battery factory in California alone will be producing 40GWh a year. https://electrek.co/2021/10/08/tesla-megafactory-aims-40-gwh-megapacks-per-year/

9 hours ago, kshithij Sharma said:

Also, what is that 5.1GW battery capacity in the pie chart? I don't understand where that figure came from? What is the capacity of the battery mentioned? Generation is written as GWH, not GW.

Ask the EIA.

 

9 hours ago, kshithij Sharma said:

Moreover, the batteries need replacing every 1500 cycles or 4 years which makes them a very difficult source to use.

LFP batteries last over 5K cycles in grid applications.  -1/4C is becoming a standard. However the newest announcements are -1/8C so that might takeover in a few years.

 

9 hours ago, kshithij Sharma said:

About increased capacity of wind/solar, you are missing the point that you can't simply install 300% of needed generation capacity of wind and expect it to produce 100% energy. This is because the wind is fluctuating. At times there will be heavy wind where all the wind farms will produce huge energy while at another time there will be no wind anywhere at all. The wind is not uniformly distributed and can't be averaged out by adding extra capacity.

That is what the batteries are for. You are apparently clueless about the concept.

9 hours ago, kshithij Sharma said:

Green hydrogen does not work. This was suggested by Nixon after 1973 embargo. Nixon even placed solar panels on White House as a symbolic gesture to remove dependence on Arabs. One of the projects Nixon wanted to start was to replace oil with hydrogen. He wanted to build massive hydrogen generation capacity and long pipelines to transport hydrogen. However, the experiments carried out by the researchers showed that Hydrogen leaks out of containers pretty quickly causing heavy losses in a small time. Leaking hydrogen can also cause fire hazards. Containing hydrogen needed a special lining to the interior of the containers and pipelines which was very expensive and difficult to do on a large scale. Consequently this project was considered unfeasible and dropped.

Green hydrogen is under massive investment and development. Technology on that front is advancing rapidly. 

No Nixon did not put solar panels on the White House! That was Jimmy Carter.

 

Edited March 10, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[TailingsPond + 476]

5 hours ago, Boat said:

Biden could set the price of oil with Mexico and Canada at let’s say $65. Nat gas at $3. All exports after consumption could go at the world rate. That’s what a real president would do.

Laughable.

You don't get to decree that Canada and Mexico have to give you a deal.

Pay your tribute?  haha  Why not just demand cash transfers?

 

Edited March 10, 2022 by TailingsPond

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

50 minutes ago, Ron Wagner said:

2 years to sell more new EVs than ICE vehicles? Does that include hybrids? 

I think it would take more time than that because many people would wait to see how gasoline prices change.  For me, I would like a plug in hybrid but may never need a new car. I still have the Maverick in mind but would sell my big 12 seat van. The Maverick is as you told me not a plug in. I had seen a picture of one that had been considered for production. I may just wait and watch the state of the art evolve. 

No, 2 years until we install more grid batteries than natural gas power plants. 6 years until PEVs outsell ICE in US.

Edited March 10, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Eric Gagen + 713]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

No, 2 years until we install more grid batteries than natural gas power plants. 6 years until PEVs outsell ICE in US.

Those numbers are aggressive, but they COULD be right.  As a betting man, I might put it at 4 years and 8 years respectively.  The thing with batteries is that they might reach saturation in local regions (like California) before they get stretch into underserved areas, creating a lumpy adoption and distribution process.  For PEV's my assumption is based on two factors:

that there will be a significant minority of vehicles which will be hard to electrify (think 17 passenger vans, pickup trucks used for hauling, and farm vehicles)

And the other, more serious factor is the speed at which mining operations for batteries can expand, which could put a cap on growth rates of EV battery systems. 

[QuarterCenturyVet + 312]

7 hours ago, Boat said:

We already export 8.2 mbpd minus Russian oil. 7.6 million barrels a day we refine and ship that the US doesn't need for consumption. I’m woke and know that. The Prez got the number right. 90% of oil drilled comes from private owned land. 10% from government land. Government land has over 900 drilling permits filed. Seems the private sector will be just fine for some time. It’s tough being woke around some no googling  Fox News parrots. Although Bloomberg and I think NBC was spouting nonsense about Russian oil being needed. The red deep state is bigger than you think. They even dressing in blue. 

You use Google? What's it like being a propaganda gargling sheep? You haven't been able to find actual facts in about a decade, since they've been throttling results for at least that long. 

The US and Canada essentially trade oil back and forth to each other with refined products being the tradeoff. That's where a majority of your "7.6mpd" goes and comes from. 

You're so woke that your brain fell outta your head. 

 

 

[QuarterCenturyVet + 312]

12 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

That chart is actual historical electrical output you twerp. Note the title that says 'Net generation'.

Correct, it isn't rocket science, it is economics you clod.

 

 

I read "New generation". My mistake. 

OK. So take "Net generation" of solar and wind, then add 3× the "generation" to get total capacity because those sources of energy are a waste of space and materials. 

Meanwhile:

https://thenextweb.com/news/geothermal-energy-europe-answer-natural-gas

Geothermal is coming, Jay. It's better than intermittent trash and backup batteries mostly built in China with NG plants for baseload. 

Maybe your dismal science can't predict macroeconomic trends at all. Stick to micro. Your Californian tilt makes you blind to anything else.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

29 minutes ago, QuarterCenturyVet said:

I read "New generation". My mistake. 

OK. So take "Net generation" of solar and wind, then add 3× the "generation" to get total capacity because those sources of energy are a waste of space and materials. 

Meanwhile:

https://thenextweb.com/news/geothermal-energy-europe-answer-natural-gas

Geothermal is coming, Jay. It's better than intermittent trash and backup batteries mostly built in China with NG plants for baseload. 

Maybe your dismal science can't predict macroeconomic trends at all. Stick to micro. Your Californian tilt makes you blind to anything else.

Actually California produces more geothermal power than any other state, and alone accounts for more than 20% of total geothermal energy production worldwide. https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/how-california-can-expand-us-geothermal-energy-production

I'm all for geothermal but the tech needed to make it a growing reality is purely experimental let alone cost effective. Solar, wind and batteries are in production with known cost and growth functions today. That is what makes a trend. By definition it means that your geothermal advancements are not trends which can be predicted they are hopes.

Edited March 10, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

Quidnet bags 15-year deal with Texas utility for ‘geomechanical pumped storage’ solution

ByCameron Murray

March 8, 2022

Americas, US & Canada

Grid Scale

Products, Technology

Share on linkedin

LinkedIn

Share on twitter

Twitter

Share on reddit

Reddit

Share on facebook

Facebook

Share on email

Email

Quidnet Energy has developments underway in Texas (pictured), New York, Ohio and Alberta, Canada. Image: Quidnet Energy.

Quidnet Energy, a provider of a novel geomechanical pumped storage (GPS) technology, has struck a 15-year commercial agreement with Texas utility CPS Energy to supply an initial 10MWh system.

Phase one of the project will involved Quidnet delivering an initial one-megawatt (MW) 10-hour storage facility with an option to extent the project to 15MW. The 15-year agreement allows the time for both parties to explore Quidnet’s technology, the press release says.

The Houston-based company’s technology is a form of pumped hydro storage with a 10-hour plus duration. It works by pumping water into an underground reservoir to be stored between impermeable rock layers at high pressure. When the system needs to dispatch electricity, the water is released upwards to power a hydroelectric turbine in a close loop system.

Unlike conventional pumped hydro, it does not need elevated terrain and requires a fraction of the time and cost to build, Quidnet claims. Specifically, it claims that its solution requires half, or less, of the capital expenditure and long-term costs of battery and conventional pumped hydro storage.

The CPS Energy deal marks Quidnet’s sixth test/pilot project, with the previous five in Texas (2), Ohio, New York and Alberta. It claims its projects employ “much of the same expertise, workforce, and supply chains as the oil and gas industry,” providing a natural pathway into the green economy for those professionals.

It has received investment by Bill Gates’ Breakthrough Energy Ventures, Evok Innovations, Trafigura and others, funding from the Department of Energy, and is a founding member of the Long Duration Energy Storage Council. The foundation of acting couple Will and Jada Smith backed the company at its foundation in 2015.

Quidnet’s Texas location and focus is unsurprising. The state is the highest energy consumer in the US, accounting for around one-seventh of the country’s power needs according to the US Energy Information Administration (sixth-highest per capita). It has large energy-intensive sectors based there like petroleum refining and chemical manufacturing, though is still the third-highest net exporter of energy among US states.

[TailingsPond + 476]

54 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

It claims its projects employ “much of the same expertise, workforce, and supply chains as the oil and gas industry,” providing a natural pathway into the green economy for those professionals.

That is the real way to win over many of the oil-loving holdouts. Give them a good job making / storing clean energy and they will soon become fans.

 

Edited March 11, 2022 by TailingsPond

[QuarterCenturyVet + 312]

53 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

That is the real way to win over many of the oil-loving holdouts. Give them a good job making / storing clean energy and they will soon become fans.

 

Uh, no shit, Sherlock. 

The geological, drilling and completion tech is already there. The Greenview, AB 10MW station will be online in 2024. 

Leduc 1 was in 1947 and look how it started Alberta’s path to being the greatest per capita earning province in Canada, not that you're a contributor, you government paid parasite. 

 

Edited March 11, 2022 by QuarterCenturyVet
Redunda

[QuarterCenturyVet + 312]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Actually California produces more geothermal power than any other state, and alone accounts for more than 20% of total geothermal energy production worldwide. https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/how-california-can-expand-us-geothermal-energy-production

I'm all for geothermal but the tech needed to make it a growing reality is purely experimental let alone cost effective. Solar, wind and batteries are in production with known cost and growth functions today. That is what makes a trend. By definition it means that your geothermal advancements are not trends which can be predicted they are hopes.

Steam driven turbines aren't experimental. 

The geological, drilling and Multistage completions tech is already well established. Surface tech seen in SAGD oilsands facilities is already well known. 

This isn't hopes and dreams. This is the future of prolific and abundant electric generation, and can be accessed anywhere in the world. 

Don't be sad that you need wind, solar and batteries to make your green dream work. 20 $1M dollar wells can produce electricity with the surface equipment, 24hr/day, better than an array of $8M 10MW windmills. 

Economic reality. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

4 minutes ago, QuarterCenturyVet said:

Steam driven turbines aren't experimental. 

The geological, drilling and Multistage completions tech is already well established. Surface tech seen in SAGD oilsands facilities is already well known. 

This isn't hopes and dreams. This is the future of prolific and abundant electric generation, and can be accessed anywhere in the world. 

Don't be sad that you need wind, solar and batteries to make your green dream work. 20 $1M dollar wells can produce electricity with the surface equipment, 24hr/day, better than an array of $8M 10MW windmills. 

Economic reality. 

No, the drilling tech needed for what you envision is purely experimental. Everything else is situational and small. Reread the article you posted.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

Alberta wind and solar moving into high gear! No mention of geothermal. Hmmm.

There are several reasons for this growth. First, Alberta has world-class wind and solar resources and room to build projects. For instance, Southern Alberta averages 2,500 hours of sunlight per year, a solar resource greater than Germany and equivalent to Florida or Rio de Janeiro; Southern Alberta’s wind resources, which blow across its approximate 100,000km², are among the strongest in the world.

Second, although Alberta has historically been dominated by coal-powered generation, coal retirement is happening faster than expected. The government’s legislated target for a complete phase-out of coal-powered generation is 2030, but coal is expected to be gone from the Alberta grid by 2023 due in part to natural gas conversions and the falling capital costs of renewables. In January 2022, for the first time in over 80 years, wind power contributed more to Alberta's grid than coal for several days.

Third, government support and programmes have increased capacity. In 2017-18, AESO ran a competitive procurement to incentivise the development of large-scale renewable projects and awarded 1,363MW of renewables contracts. Other government programmes for municipalities, communities, indigenous interests, farms and residences have also encouraged growth.

Fourth, as elsewhere, the capital costs of renewable projects continue to fall and now compete with natural gas-powered generation, generally without the need for government subsidies. According to the AESO’s Long-Term Outlook, the capital costs of new wind facilities between 2021 and 2025 are estimated at $1,586/kW, and after 2025 at $1,105/kW.

The AESO estimates the capital cost for new solar in 2021-25 at $1,643/kW, and after 2025 at $1,388/kW. For comparison, the capital cost of combined-cycle natural gas power production is estimated by the AESO at $1,667/kW.

https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/knowledge/publications/7daa0c21/alberta-renewables-market-seeing-strong-growth

[Ecocharger + 1,378]

Coal is hot again, and coal prices are set to soar into the stratosphere.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Ukraine-Crisis-Could-Send-Coal-Prices-To-500.html

"While much has been written about the oil, gas, and nickel price spikes, the current global coal crunch has largely been overlooked.

While coal demand had been waning for the last decade, Russia’s market share has increased just as coal becomes a key energy source again.

Most of Europe’s best coal has already been extracted, so it will have to look to Colombia, Germany, Poland, South Africa, and the U.S. for relief."

Edited March 11, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

Just now, Ecocharger said:

Coal is hot again, and coal prices are set to soar into the stratosphere.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Ukraine-Crisis-Could-Send-Coal-Prices-To-500.html

HaHa and you think that is good for coal? Everyone is wondering how they can get some cheap renewable energy fast.

[Ecocharger + 1,378]

20 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

HaHa and you think that is good for coal? Everyone is wondering how they can get some cheap renewable energy fast.

Read the words, Jay, coal is again a rising demand commodity.

And that will continue.