AvailableGreenEnergy

Posts Tagged ‘Alberta’

It’s unfortunate that AltaRock is having such a tough time with its enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) project in northern California. The company has suspended drilling on its first well, citing “geological anomolies,” and it plans to regroup and figure out next steps. Nobody said EGS projects would be easy, and all of this is a learning experience for AltaRock. Meanwhile, I’m encouraged to see interest in tapping geothermal energy as a byproduct of oil and gas production in the Canadian west. A British Columbia-based company called Free Energy International has signed a deal with an undisclosed oil and gas exploration and production company in Alberta, in an area known as Swan Hills. Free Energy will build two 1-megawatt geothermal plants that take hot water — a co-product of oil and natural gas during the pumping process —  and extract the heat from it to generate electricity. The $7 million project will tap wells that are around 9,000 feet deep, and temperatures of the fluids can easily reach 170 degrees F in high volumes. After the heat is extracted from the water using heat exchangers, it is used to run an Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) power plant. The water is later pumped back into the ground. Free Energy will build, own and operate this binary cycle plant and the oil company has agreed to buy all the electricity produced for the same rate it was paying to a previous supplier. I’m hoping this new approach will catch on in Canada’s oil patch, the same way it’s being tried out in Texas . Indeed, a new Calgary-based company has recently been formed called Borealis Geopower , which was recently awarded $2.6 million from the Alberta Energy Research Institute to develop a similar project in the province. “Hot water resource is readily available through the existence of numerous deep, end-of-life oil and gas wells in the Canadian Foothills and the use of hot water resource for electricity production has the potential to increase energy efficiency and offer carbon offsets for the oil and gas companies,” Borealis states on its Web site. These are the kinds of geothermal projects that could really take off, particularly if companies such as Borealis and Free Energy can prove them to be economical for oil companies trying desperately to reduce their carbon footprints as cap-and-trade approaches. If they can demonstrate this works, it will also capture the attention of the Alberta and Canadian governments. Having 100MW-plus geothermal plants built in Canada would be nice, too, but this kind of distributed geothermal energy generation makes oodles of sense and should be pursued with vigour.

The Alberta Clipper pipeline (red). Click to enlarge. The US State Department has issued a Presidential Permit to Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership to enable construction of the Alberta Clipper pipeline for the transport of crude oil from the Canadian oil sands to US refineries. ( Earlier post .) The 1,000-mile/1,607-km pipeline will run from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada, to Superior, Wisconsin. Construction in the United States will consist of two components that would have independent utility: the Alberta Clipper Pipeline itself and the Southern Lights Diluent Pipeline. The 36-inch Alberta Clipper Pipeline will carry up to 450,000 barrels of oil sands crude per day—with ultimate capacity of up to 800,000 bpd available—from the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin in Canada to refineries in the US. In the US, the Alberta Clipper Pipeline will extend 326 miles from the US-Canadian border near Neche, North Dakota across northern Minnesota to an Enbridge terminal in Superior, Wisconsin. The Southern Lights Diluent Project will consist of a new 20-inch pipeline extending 191 miles from Superior, Wisconsin to an Enbridge terminal in Clearbrook, Minnesota. In the US, these pipelines will be constructed at approximately the same time in the same right-of-way, and this right-of way would almost entirely be located along an existing Enbridge pipeline right-of-way. Because the Alberta Clipper Project requires a crossing of the US-Canadian border, a Presidential Permit is required from the State Department for the project to proceed. Environmental groups had been urging Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to reject the permit based on the greenhouse gas and other environmental tolls taken by oil sands production. The RFA “They Said What?” Campaign In early August, the Renewable Fuels Association launched a “They Said What?” campaign targeting the application of indirect impacts such as international indirect land use change only to the calculation of the carbon footprint of biofuels. The campaign has been combining short quotes from organizations such as the EPA and CARB with pictures illustrating the opposite conclusion. The first piece, for example, quoted the CARB proposed regulation for the LCFS saying no other significant indirect effects other than biofuel land use change had been identified, next to a picture of oil wells burning in Iraq in 1991. This week, the RFA happened to issue two pieces, each touching on the impact of oil sands production. “ America’s farmers and ethanol producers have been blamed for changes in how land is used all across the globe. Petroleum exploration and exploitation, by comparison, has gotten a free pass. No greater evidence of this can be found than in the tar sands of Canada, ” the RFA wrote in the first piece , accompanied by a before and after shot of an oil sands development. The second piece of the week, issued the same day that State awarded the permit for the Alberta Clipper, cited the EPA notice of proposed rulemaking (“ our preliminary analysis suggests land use impacts of petroleum production for the fuels used in the US in 2005 would not have an appreciable impact… ”). The RFA then stated that “ Tar sands excavation involves significant direct land use change and disruption. The ability of biofuels to displace the need for tar sands is not recognized in most biofuels analyses ,” following it up with another picture: In a statement issued on the granting of the permit, the State Department said that it had found that the addition of crude oil pipeline capacity between Canada and the United States “ will advance a number of strategic interests of the United States .” These included increasing the diversity of available supplies among the United States’ worldwide crude oil sources in a time of considerable political tension in other major oil producing countries and regions; shortening the transportation pathway for crude oil supplies; and increasing crude oil supplies from a major non-Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries producer. …The National Interest Determination took many factors into account, including greenhouse gas emissions. The administration believes the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions are best addressed through each country’s robust domestic policies and a strong international agreement. …The United States will continue to reduce reliance on oil through conservation and energy efficiency measures, such as the recently increased Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, as well as through the pursuit of comprehensive climate legislation and an ambitious global agreement on climate change to include substantial emission reductions for both the United States and Canada. —US State Department The Department said that it environmentally reviewed the project in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires public disclosure of potential environmental impacts, identification of potential mitigation measures, and consideration of alternatives to avoid or minimize potential significant impacts. The public scoping period formally concluded on 10 September 2007. The written and verbal comments received during the scoping process were used to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was published 5 December 2008. Public comments on the DEIS were accepted until 30 January 2009. In December 2008 and January 2009, public comment meetings were held at 8 locations along the pipeline route to receive public comments on the DEIS. The written and verbal comments received during this process were used to prepare the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). The FEIS was submitted to the EPA on 5 June 2009. Resources US Dept. of State Alberta Clipper Project website (including EIS)

Been crazy busy this past week but there’s been no shortage of interesting news in the cleantech and green energy space, so I’ll summarize a few of them here instead of doing individual posts. BTW: Hope everyone is enjoying their summer. Click to the next page to read about General Fusion’s new infusion of cash, new fluids that can make enhanced geothermal more efficient, a McKinsey report that details the incredible payback of investments in energy efficency, and a University of Calgary report that says Alberta would benefit tremendously by plugging into electric transportation. * Vancouver-based General Fusion , which is trying to build a low-budget nuclear fusion power reactor, raised $9 million from private investors, which triggers a $4.5 million grant from Sustainable Development Technology Canada. It’s enough to get it through the first two-year phase of a four-year project that will see it design and build a test fusion reactor that can demonstrate “net gain.” Projected cost: $50 million. The company is aiming to build a 100 megawatt prototype power plant five years later — sometime before 2020, at least — which would beat the ITER project in France by, oh, two decades. And at an estimated $500 million it would come in at a fraction of the cost. Go, boys, go! (See MIT Technology Review story here ). * Another MIT Technology Review story takes a look at work being done at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory on a new type of heat-absorbing fluid that could be used with binary-cycle geothermal power projects to boost efficiency by 20 to 30 per cent. The fluid is a mixture of organic liquid and metal nanoparticles bonded by organic “linkers.” Researchers figure that the heat-trapping efficiency of the mixture, when used as a working fluid in a closed loop to extract heat from a primary fluid (i.e. the hot water pumped from underground) can improve the economics of enhanced geothermal power projects, either by allowing a plant to be built with a smaller heat exchanger (a big part of a plant’s cost) or by reducing the depth of drilling required to access heat in rock (i.e. the fluid allows the plant to do more with less underground heat). It may sound boring, but this is potentially a huge breakthrough for geothermal. * I encourage you to read Joe Romm at Climate Progress and his post about a new report from consultancy giant McKinsey, which has found through comprehensive analysis that a $520 billion (U.S.) investment in energy efficiency in the United States through to 2020 would yield energy savings of more than $1.2 trilion — in other words, a payback of $680 million. “Such a program is estimated to reduce end-use energy consumption in 2020 by 9.1 quadrillion BTUs, roughly 23 per cent of projected demand, potentially abating up to 1.1 gigatons of CO2 annually.” McKinsey wisely included co-generation/CHP as part of its analysis — a crucial component that’s too often overlooked. As Romm points out, the savings and CO2 reductions are even more impressive considering McKinsey’s analysis doesn’t even touch on the transportation sector and potential for reductions there. * Over at the University of Calgary, meanwhile, a report has been released that shows it would be a no-brainer for Alberta to embrace plug-in hybrid vehicles. “Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles could release 40 to 90 per cent fewer greenhouse gas emissions in Alberta than conventional passenger vehicles,” researchers found. It’s an interesting conclusion, given that over 90 per cent of Alberta’s power generation comes from fossil-fuel based resources — coal, natural gas and oil — the highest in Canada. Now, we’ve seen studies before that suggest even with 100 per cent coal you still get emission reductions, but nowhere near 40 per cent, let alone 90 per cent. Getting those levels, researcher say, requires “smart charging systems” that could make the most of Alberta’s growing wind resources. In other words, an infrastructure that would know to charge cars only when the wind is blowing, typically at night. Of course, the potential for smart charging applies to any jurisdiction, but it’s good to see folks in Alberta giving it serious thought.

The environmental benefit of a large-scale deployment of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) in the Canadian province of Alberta could vary significantly, ranging from a 40% to a 90% reduction in greenhouse gases, according to a study by electrical engineers at the University of Calgary’s Schulich School of Engineering. The study found the environmental impacts of PHEVs in Alberta would depend on factors such as vehicle battery size, charging time and wind production levels. Power generation in Alberta is thermal-dominated. Of the installed capacity of just above 12,000 MW, approximately 49% (5,893 MW) is coal fired, 39% (4,686 MW) is gas-fired, 7% (869 MW) is hydro, and 4% (497 MW) is wind powered. However, the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) has nearly 11 GW interest in wind power developments, and is facing an operational challenge given a thermal-dominated system with limited flexibility. The AESO has thus been actively looking at ways to mitigate the high volatility of wind. Optimal use of clean energy is especially important in Alberta, the Canadian province with the highest amount of thermally generated power in Canada and also home to the majority of oil-sands production. More than 90% of electricity in Alberta is produced by methods that emit greenhouse gases: burning coal, oil or natural gas. Considering the potential application of PHEVs as a distributed storage system, the researchers note, PHEVs could be further promoted by the regulator in the province as a tool to offset wind intermittency. The research of professors Hamid Zareipour, Bill Rosehart and PhD candidate Mahdi Hajian will be presented next week at an international power engineering conference in Calgary, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Power & Energy Society General Meeting. They say Alberta needs smart charging systems to make the most of the province’s wind resources. Infrastructure would include technology with communication links to allow system operators to distribute electricity to vehicles when wind power production is at its highest, usually at night. Even in a thermal-dominated system like Alberta, we can still benefit significantly in terms of environmental impacts by using plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. If we plan to charge them in a smart way, we can reduce a significant amount of emissions in the transportation system. —Hamid Zareipour Smart charging systems would also help the power system handle the increased demand for electricity resulting from widespread adoption of hybrid cars. Cars would be charged outside of peak demand times to avoid overloading the grid. The whole idea is to consume the wind power in the system as much as possible. Unfortunately, the wind is unreliable because it’s not always blowing when we need it. Smart charging systems would help us harness the wind so we can store it in the vehicles’ batteries for later use. —Mahdi Hajian The researchers used 2007 wind production levels and assumed 30% of Albertans were driving PHEVs when they considered four charging scenarios: battery charging at night, during the day, randomly through the night and randomly over a 24-hour period. While wind energy production mostly happens at night, all four scenarios point to the need for smart charging systems. The results of the study are specific to Alberta but the conclusions could be applied elsewhere. The researchers say other provinces should also have smart charging systems, but the need would depend on electrical load patterns and the availability of clean energy sources such as hydro. Resources Environmental Benefits of Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles: the Case of Alberta

Secretary Clinton’s pen could prevent a new pipeline that would suck filthy tar-sands into the US. This morning, the Avaaz Action Factory in DC showed the State Department just how terrible the oil sands are, and how much of a climate hero Clinton can be. During the DC morning rush hour activists with the Avaaz Action Factory headed to the State Department equipped with a kiddie pool of tar sands mixture, and a big banner stating: “Clinton be a Leader. Say No to Tar Sands, Stop Global Warming.” About 1000 State Department employees walked by a battle between Super Climate Clinton and the Tar Sands Monster on their way to work. Action Factory members constructed a Boreal forest on the sidewalk in front of the State Department. There, the heartless corporate executives plotted to exploit US and Canadian dependence on oil by promoting tar sands extraction. The Tar Sands Monster, encouraged by the executives, awoke and dragged the oil-addicted US and Canada down into the dirty tar sand pit, pulling the rest of the world with them! The world’s only hope was Super Climate Clinton who faced a big decision: Should she rescue the countries trapped by the Tar Sands Monster? Or should she give in to the sleazy oil executives and approve an oil pipeline that would extend the U.S.’s dependence on dirty fossil fuels for decades to come? Executives from Shell Oil and the Royal Bank of Canada, the largest financier of oil sands extraction, distracted and mislead Super Climate Clinton, knowing that if she examined the situation she wouldn’t approve. But Clinton heard the loud calls for help from the United States, Canada, and Mother Earth. Once Clinton actually looked and saw the filthy destruction in the Boreal forests, she rescued the trapped countries, beat the dirty Tar Sands monster back and chased away the corporate executives. Secretary Clinton has the power to stop a major expansion of dirty oil production, but she needs to act quickly. The Obama campaign has promised a transformative switch to a clean energy economy, but his administration’s actions on mountain top removal coal mining and oil sands expansion have yet to live up to his word. Furthermore, Secretary Clinton just returned from a highly publicized trip to India where the media reported that she ‘ clashed ’ with the developing nation over an agreement on reducing emissions. Denying this pipeline is a big opportunity for Clinton to come back from this blow and make crucial call to prevent expansion of oil sands extraction. Clinton hopefully got our message, but she’ll definitely get it if you join us in taking action: What you can do: Call the US State Department at (202) 647-4000 and ask for Secretary Clinton’s representative and ask her to turn down the Clipper Pipeline and say no to dirty energy expansion. Then post to your facebook wall or tweet: I just called Clinton asking her to stop prevent a dirty #oilsands pipeline into the US. (link) Today’s action is part of a much larger effort involving the Rainforest Action Network , the Sierra Club and many more groups fighting to stop tar sands extraction. From DirtyOilSands.org: Oil Sands projects are the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas pollution in Canada. Production of oil from tar sands bitumen produces between 3 and 5 times the greenhouse gas pollution of conventional oil production. There has been a push to get off ‘foreign oil’ and stop sending money to the middle east. Whether you consider Canadian oil to be foreign or not (obviously it is), these discussions miss the point: Oil causes climate change, and we need to stop developing new sources of oil, new infrastructure for oil and instead focus on climate change solutions. That’s why this pipeline is critical. A major piece of infrastructure will make it that much harder to phase out the use of dirty fossil fuels, which is one of the reasons the backers of this project are pushing so hard to get this through without even a public debate. Clipper Pipeline Enbridge wants to build a 1,000-mile pipeline to transport crude oil from the Alberta Oil Sands to Superior, Wisconsin. The 36-inch Alberta Clipper Pipeline would carry up to 450,000 barrels of crude oil a day from Hardisty, Alberta (Canada) to refineries in the United States — primarily in the Midwest. Graphic: Minnesota Public Radio/Enbridge. In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Pipeline would extend 326 miles from the U.S.-Canadian border near Neche, North Dakota across northern Minnesota to an Enbridge terminal in Superior, Wisconsin. For more information on action to stop oil sands, check out DirtyOilSands.org and the Indigenous Environmental Network http://www.ienearth.org/ For more information about the Avaaz Action Factory, check out www.actionfactories.org By Morgan Goodwin and Heather Kangas, Action Factory DC. Photos by Christine Irvine

First Wind has closed two financing transactions for a total of US $191 million. The first is an eight-and-a-half-year $115 million term loan facility from Alberta Investment Management Corporation (AIMCo). The second is a $76 million one-year loan with HSH Nordbank to be used for First Wind’s Stetson project.