Gretzky and the Carbon Puck: fighting carbon and climate change

Gretzky and the carbon puck: fighting carbon and climate

change in Ontario and the world PRESENTATION BY STEVE APLIN, THE HDP GROUP INC.

HDP

Gretzky and the carbon puck: nuclear power in Ontario and the world

To chase or anticipate the puckGroupthink: chase the puck

Gretzky: anticipate the puck

Groupthink: some noteworthy examples:

◦August 2008 (major financial investors): “mortgagebacked securities are the wave of the future.”

◦August 2008 (small but wellconnected investors): “get your money into one of Bernie Madoff’s funds.”

Why not? Everyone says it, everyone’s doing it.

—2—

HDP


Part 1: The United Nations Climate Summit, the carbon puck

Unprecedented public action on the issue of climate change: New York and elsewhere, September 20.

This followed years of growing public awareness.

Climate change now a regular major focus of world media.

Manmade carbon’s link to global warming “virtually certain”: IPCC

Manmade carbon increasingly linked in public mind to storms in the news.

—3—

HDP

Nuclear Power in the Age of Climate Change Part 1: The United Nations Climate Summit, the carbon puck

Unprecedented public awareness of climate change as a global issue

Does this awareness translate into policy that can affect industries?

Ask TransCanada.

Ask Enbridge.

—4—

HDP


But awareness is wide, not deep Virtually no reportage on actual numbers.

Very few members of the public know the carbon numbers.

Carbon literacy lags awareness of the general problem.

—5—

HDP


Highlights of the Climate Summit Reaffirmation of commitment to the Green Climate Fund, a

mechanism (Copenhagen) through which developed countries help finance green projects in developing countries. Target size: US$15 billion.

Reaffirmation to commitment to the 2° C temperature rise target, to be reached by 2020.

U.N. says this requires a global CO2 emission reduction of at least 6 billion tons by 2020.

A renewed call to put a price on carbon emissions.

—6—

HDP

http://www.unep.org/newscentre/default.aspx?DocumentID=2659&ArticleID=8955





Global emissions reduction of 6 billion tons by 2020?

—7—

HDP


It takes 7.8 billion tons of CO2 to increase atmospheric concentration by 1 part per million

So the 2020 target of 6 billion tons calls for a reduction of an amount that is less than that required to raise global concentrations by 1 ppm.

We’re already increasing concentrations by 2 ppm per year.

Can we reduce CO2 emissions by even 6 billion tons by 2020?

—8—

HDP


Nearly all energy recommendations from Climate Summit focused on renewable energy

i.e., electricity generation, by wind turbines and solar panels.

Can wind turbines and solar panels make enough electricity to reduce power generation CO2 emissions by 6 billion tons by 2020?

... let alone the electricity required to convert an appreciable portion of the automobile fleet to plugin electric?

Ambitious, but let’s see what wind’s role was in the history of the grid.

—9—

HDP


Grid 1.0 and 2.0: how the world electrified

Via the Central Station grid model: geographically huge grid, large generators.

Because electrical power was a social commodity.

Only economically workable model: reliable, affordable, and viable for the utility.

Required large reliable generators: economies of scale.

By mid1900s, most countries had electrified on this model.

—10—

HDP


Grid 2.0: mid-century demand spike

Again, central station (continued).

Same social criteria: reliable, affordable, viable for utility.

... with a new kind of heat engine: nuclearpowered.

Within ~25 years, nuclear entered electricity markets:

Ontario, 20 reactors

France, 58 reactors

U.S., 104 reactors

BUT NO WIND!

—11—

HDP


Why no wind in Grid 1.0 and 2.0? Not because utilities were unaware of wind.

Not because wind generation technology did not exist.

Because wind is not efficient.

In Ontario, wind capacity factor is ~30 percent.

Wind’s poor capacity factor makes it inefficient at generating power and a poor money maker.

Wind does not fulfil the criteria for the social bargain for electricity: it is not reliable, or cheap for customers, or costviable for the utility.

—12—

HDP


Same as in merchant shipping

—13—

HDP


Today, Grid 3.0: the Carbon Criterion

The U.N. Climate Summit in September.

“Germany’s ... clean energy transition... has turned nearly onethird of the country’s electricity production green in just over 10 years.”

Really?

—14—

HDP

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/10/germany-renewableenergyclimatechange.html

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/10/germany-renewableenergyclimatechange.html


Wind and solar power in the real world: the case of Germany

German electricity generation in 2011 was 602 billion kWh.

Down from 622 billion in 2010.

Carbon dioxide output from electricity generation was...

~ 325 million tons.

37,100 tons per hour—enough to fill Rogers Centre 13 times PER HOUR (at 25° C).

Germany grid electricity CIPK in 2011: ~540 grams. Ontario’s right now is ...

... that was AFTER unprecedented buildout of wind turbines and solar panels.

—15—

HDP


—16—

HDP


Value for money?

—17—

HDP


After 14 years of renewable energy legislation, and unprecedented wind/solar investment, Germany has made no progress on cutting CO2 from power generation!

In fact, has gone backwards.

—18—

HDP


Why are Germany’s electricity-generation CO2 emissions going up?

Because Germany is phasing out nuclear power.

Nuclear down, coal up.

—19—

HDP


So the answer is NO: the world cannot reduce CO2 by 6 billion tons by 2020 through investments in wind and solar

The emphasis on “renewable” energy, wind and solar, is mistaken.

The pack is chasing the puck.

Where’s Gretzky?

—20—

HDP


Part 2: Anticipating the puck— the case of Ontario

Ontario CO2 emissions in 2000 were 40 million tons.

In 2013, CO2 emissions were less than 13 million tons.

27 million ton annual reduction, the biggest in any sector anywhere in North America.

How was this achieved? By putting 4,000 megawatts of nuclear generating capacity back into service.

... and displacing 6,000 MW of coal capacity.

—21—

HDP

Nuclear Power in the Age of Climate Change Part 2: Anticipating the puck— the case of Ontario

Ontario is now one of the cleanest electricity jurisdictions in the world

CO2 Intensity per kilowatthour (CIPK) of grid electricity is about 80 grams.

Annual CO2 emissions from ~150 billion kWh are less than 13 million tons.

... and Ontario electricity is still (mostly) affordable.

—22—

HDP


Ontario is an example of the Social Bargain on Electricity fulfilled, cleanly

Power is reliable.

It is affordable to (most) customers.

... and profitable for the companies that make most of the electricity.

—23—

HDP


ECERPMatrix

—24—

HDP

I. Dirty, cheap II. Dirty, expensive

IV. Clean, cheap III. Low carbon, expensive

Price

CO

2 in

ten

s ity


How does Ontario compare?

—25—

HDP


Ontario is in Quadrant IV of the Electricity Carbon Emission Retail Price Matrix

i.e., the clean, affordable electricity category.

Along with France, Sweden, Switzerland, Finland...

... countries with significant amounts of nuclear contribution to the grid.

ALL countries should be in Quadrant IV.

Only Quadrant IV fulfils the Social Bargain on Electricity in the Age of Climate Change.

—26—

HDP


Who’s the Gretzky player in this game? We are!

... along with France, Sweden, Switzerland, Finland.

But conventional—puckchaser—wisdom says we are a bunch of hapless peewees!

Let’s stop chasing the puck and look at how the game is developing.

What came out of the U.N. Climate Summit? GCF, twodegree limit (i.e., 6 billion ton reduction by 2020), and a PRICE ON CARBON.

A carbon price will hurt Q1 and Q2 jurisdictions.

... like the ones the puckchasers say we should copy.

—27—

HDP


Part 3: The Social Cost of Carbon Let’s use recently affirmed US$37 per ton ($35 Canadian).

What does SCC do to QIV jurisdictions?

Let’s look at August 25 31 in Ontario.‒

—28—

HDP

Nuclear Power in the Age of Climate Change Part 3: The Social Cost of Carbon

Gas-fired generation, Ontario, Aug 25 31 2014‒

—29—

HDP


CO2 emissions from <10 percent of that week’s electricity would have cost $5 million

Would have added ~1.8 cents to the cost of each kWh of gasfired power.

—30—

HDP


What happens to QII jurisdictions with an SCC of $37 per ton?

For example, Germany and Denmark?

In Germany, it adds 2 cents to the cost of electricity, so it increases to ~36 cents per kWh.

In Denmark, pushes price to ~37 cents.

... and $37 is a conservative estimate of the SCC.

An SCC of $109, the worstcase scenario, German household rates push toward 39 cents.

Danish, to ~40 cents.

Would THAT get them to rethink nuclear?

—31—

HDP


Ontario in 2020 Gas replaces Pickering for baseload.

A hugely successful conservation campaign that results in 2,000 MW reduction still produces more CO2 than now.

A windgas grid, recommended by green lobby, generating 17 billion less kWh than today, emits 51 million tons of CO2—38 million tons more than today’s nucleardominated mix.

Are we still in QIV, even without a price on carbon?

NO—we’ll have moved to Quadrant II, with Germany.

... only much farther to the righthand boundary.

—32—

HDP


Carbon dioxide concentration in the global atmosphere, 2020

—33—

HDP


We must be realistic Global CO2 concentration is pushing 400 ppm now.

At current rates of emissions, it will be ~412 ppm by 2020.

If we keep chasing the puck, current rates will remain the same or increase.

... unless we choose the proven route to peoplefriendly emission reductions.

Ontario electricity could be 100 percent carbonfree by 2020.

... if we just follow Gretzky’s example.

—34—

HDP

Gretzky and the Carbon Puck: fighting carbon and climate change

Environment

Transcript of Gretzky and the Carbon Puck: fighting carbon and climate change