So Tell me again Why WE INVEST HEAVILY IN A BUGGY WHIP PLANT ??

[mustardman]

So Why have we spent 1.3 BILLION ? on trying to make Old technology clean ?
I'm talking coal plants and CCS that is a huge money loser.
We could have kickstarted the Renewables or at least bought clean power from Manitoba.
But no lets INVEST in the Telegraph system. WT****

[mustardman]

On top of money spent building this Albatross we will also have to Pay Double for power since it Reduces efficiency of plant by 1/2.
A fricking coal plant ???

Some of you boys must be still using steel wheel tractors

[stonepicker]

wasn't it you mustard that was singing the praises of china and india's new coal plants? How new technology made them extremely clean burning and they were only using the finest top grade coal? But if sask. does it, it's a bad thing?

[ajl]

I agree CCS is a total waste of time and money. I is time to grow up and stop trying to make CO2 a pollutant for the purposes of extorting tax dollars. That includes both the governments of SK and AB. We have stupid CCS waste going on here too. Then we need to reverse the even more stupid policy of mothballing AB's good coal fired generators like the one at Hanna.

[Oliver88]

We have an excellent example for Mustardman to watch that is basically doing what he is recommending, the province of Alberta.

Alberta is shutting down their coal power plants, switching to "green" sources, buying power from BC and charging themselves a $50/tonne CARBON TAX.

We will see how our friends in Alberta fair over the next few years. This fiscal years deficit forecasted by their social worker converted to a finance minister Joe Cici will be a small $11 billion.......

[seabass]

Follow the money as SF3 says. The people with the money invested in a system aren't gonna let it die easily. Only until there money is well into the new form of power we are to use. Whatever that is.

[oneoff]

There is not a damn thing wrong with jet turbines powered directly by burning fuel; nor using water heated past the boiling point to spin a turbine hooked to a generator; nor natural gas fired electrical turbine generators.

It ain't necessarily obsolete technology.

And if stripping CO2 out of fllue gases can be done; and there are productive uses for the CO2 produced and it is an efficient process and doesn't use more energy than its worth; then just because it uses coal is no excuse to not be considered.

Unfortunately it could be close to (or an actual) snake oil project that shouldn't have proceeded past the research stage. Maybe the U of Regina Engineering dep't reputation is at stake; and maybe SaskPower and government direction should be held accountable; just like Gigatext and any other project that is an expensive failure. Ha Ha

And its getting time to do that analysis. And maybe the main problem could be that necessary regeneration and scheduled required maintenance (in a parallel operating system in real time); without shutting down everything ;was not incorporated or overlooked in the design plans.

I have no idea and that criticism arises because it is known that the Saskpower CCS project has not lived up to expectations and actual construction was a nightmare and payments for non delivery of CO2 have been demanded. However with such new technology; the processes are typically closely guarded secrets for some good reasons. In the end more than one person needs to be accountable; and deserves to either be praised and rewarded or given something akin to punishment.

As has been said; 1.4 Billion is way too much to waste. I'm ready for the truth in this matter.

[oneoff]

OK take most of that last post a speculative comments based on next to no information

Here's a link to the Sask Power site and blog about monthly operation of the Unit #3 CCS. It looks like for the past year; the Unit #3 has been consistently operating at very near the "supposed" target of 85% uptime. Now whether that figure is acceptable is open to your and my opinion. And why uptime of 85% is an acceptable figure; when obviously there is 15% loss just in those non productive shutdowns.

And certainly whether extra CO2 flue gas production resulting from running the CO2 capture unit are properly accounted for is something I'd want to look into further.


I'd be interested in how much CO2 (in total from both the electrical generation and also operation of the CCS components and maybe all way through to delivery to end consumer) is still not captured from a Megawatt of produced electrical energy and at what additional running costs there are for all the extra complexity of trying to make it more "green".

I mean what are the waste products and efficiencies of amine unit etc. and scaling and contamination from fly ash etc. etc. Are we being told everything??

[oneoff]

Interesting reading from the Sask Power site


INNOVATING TODAY TO POWER TOMORROW — CHAPTER 3

The importance of coal
Coal is used to provide power around the globe — it’s a non-renewable energy source that generates approximately 40 per cent of the world’s electricity.

Almost 50 per cent of the electricity generated in the province uses coal as a fuel source. We have lots of coal in Saskatchewan, and it’s cheaper than using other fossil fuels in our power plants. The technology behind coal plants, which operate 24/7, is well-developed and extremely reliable.

We currently have three coal-fired plants in two Saskatchewan communities:

Boundary Dam Power Station (Estevan)
Shand Power Station (Estevan)
Poplar River Power Station (Coronach)
What's changed?
There's been a steady increase of carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the 1700s. As the world’s population increases, and developing countries continue to industrialize and increase their standard of living, CO2 emissions will continue to grow.

In Saskatchewan, coal accounts for 44 per cent of our fuel and produces 70 per cent of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.


“There is only one way we can square this circle of slashing greenhouse gases, while ensuring economic growth continues, and a big part of that, absolutely, is CCS.”
Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall
Canada is among the first in the world to make laws on emission reduction for coal-fired plants, while governments in the United States and Europe are discussing targets.
In 2011, the federal government announced strict performance standards for new coal-fired units and units that have reached the end of their useful life. These regulations are expected to result in a reduction of GHG emissions in Canada of about 214 megatonnes — equal to taking 2.6 million personal vehicles off the road per year.

Unless we find a cleaner way of doing it, we can’t use coal.

Why coal?
Our homes and businesses need baseload power, which is power we can use all day, every day.

Visit our SaskPower CCS website to learn more about the project.
Wind and solar can only provide power part of the time because wind conditions have to be just right and the sun only shines part of the day. In Saskatchewan, wind turbines can produce power to meet our needs 40 per cent of the time, and our climate and geography make solar power, which could meet our needs up to 15 per cent of the time, an expensive option.

Hydro power is another option that provides baseload power. While there are low operating costs associated with hydro, it comes with high construction costs. Saskatchewan’s flat landscape and lack of major rivers limits the opportunities for hydro.

Replacing coal would be a challenge. The loss of coal would not only cripple our ability to supply the province with the power that our lives demand, but would also have a severe economic impact on Estevan and Coronach as the coal-fired plants in those communities would need to shut down.

Why carbon capture?

Learn more about our supply options
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) allows us to reduce emissions and still use coal as a fuel source.

The first carbon storage project dates back to 1979, and many projects since then have successfully stored CO2 underground for more than 30 years. This includes Saskatchewan’s own Weyburn-Midale project, which began in 2000.

Our carbon capture project at Boundary Dam is not the first, nor will it be the last, that will use carbon capture, transportation and storage technology. What makes our project unique is the scale — it’s the first commercial-scale CCS project of its kind in the world.


The future is now
The launch of our carbon capture project on Oct. 2, 2014, means we have extended the life of an aging coal unit by decades. It also allows us to continue producing affordable power by dramatically reducing the sulphur dioxide (SO2) and CO2 that a coal-fired unit usually releases.

This project will allow us to:

Produce at least 110 megawatts (MW) of power, which is approximately enough to power 100,000 Saskatchewan homes;
Reduce the SO2 emissions from the coal process by 100 per cent and the CO2 by up to 90 per cent; and
Capture up to 1,000,000 tonnes of CO2 every year, which is the same as taking 250,000 cars off our roads.
Through the Boundary Dam project and our continuing CCS research, we will keep finding ways to build projects using fewer dollars and less time — that’s why the world is watching.

Our CCS project has hosted groups from Hitachi in Japan, the U.K. government, European electrical giant Vattenfall, and many media outlets, including the New York Times. We’ve even partnered with Vattenfall to share CCS breakthroughs from North America and Europe, which will allow us to move forward with our research even faster.

CCS is a big part of our power future in Saskatchewan, and around the world.

Carbon capture and storage at a glance.

[oneoff]

Bits and pieces that enter into the mix....including figures about Sask wind producing power 40% of time and solar power a measly 15% of potential uptime contribution. Just as I suspected. Anybody else shocked about putting many eggs in wind and solar basket. Here are directquotes from above article:

"In Saskatchewan, coal accounts for 44 per cent of our fuel and produces 70 per cent of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Wind and solar can only provide power part of the time because wind conditions have to be just right and the sun only shines part of the day. In Saskatchewan, wind turbines can produce power to meet our needs 40 per cent of the time, and our climate and geography make solar power, which could meet our needs up to 15 per cent of the time, an expensive option."

Also there is a quote about 50% of current electrical generating capacity in Sask coming from the three coal fired generating stations...some of which seem to have been commissioned a relatively short while ago at great cost and were expected to have decades more useful lifespans.

[mustardman]

http://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdfhttp://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf
USA Average Levilized cots of energy (LCOE) for plants coming on stream in 2022 in USA in 2015 $/Mwh. No subsidies included.

Coal with CCS - $139.5
Natural Gas Conventional Combined cycle - $58.1
Natural Gas Advanced Combined cycle -$57.2
Natural Gas CC with CCS -$84.8
Natural Gas Conventional Combustion Turbine - $110.8
Natural Gas Advanced Combustion Turbine - $94.7

Advanced Nuclear - $102.8
Geothermal -$45
Biomass -$96.1

Wind - $64.5
Wind Offshore - $158.1
Solar PV - $84.7
Solar Thermal -$235.9
Hydroelectric -$67.8

[oneoff]

When in doubt turn to Wiki

Carbon Capture and Storage Demonstration Project[edit]
Boundary Dam Integrated Carbon Capture and Storage Demonstration is a project to retrofit the lignite-fired Unit #3 with carbon capture and an enhanced oil recovery system.[7] It consists of two distinct parts: Repowering of the existing Unit #3 and the installation of the Carbon Dioxide, Sulphur Dioxide and NOx capture facility. Its primary purpose is to provide a low-cost source of carbon dioxide, to the mature Weyburn Oil Field, for Enhanced Oil Recovery.[8][9] It is expected to result in a 90 percent (1 million tonnes/year) reduction in CO2 emissions and will also reduce the output of Unit 3 from 139 MW to 110 MW.[10] However, critics point out that the 90% figure refers to the percentage of total CO2 emissions captured, and that only about a half of this CO2 will be actually be permanently stored. The remainder is released into the atmosphere during capturing, and the processing in the oil field.[11] The retrofitted unit was officially opened in October 2014,[12] and is the world's first commercial-scale, lignite-fired power plant equipped with carbon capture and storage technology[13][14]

In 2015, internal documents from SaskPower revealed that there were "serious design issues" in the carbon capture system, resulting in regular breakdowns and maintenance problems that led the unit to only be operational 40% of the time. SNC-Lavalin had been contracted to engineer, procure, and build the facility, and the documents asserted that it "has neither the will or the ability to fix some of these fundamental flaws."[15] The low productivity of the plant had in turn meant that SaskPower was only able to sell half of the 800,000 tonnes of captured carbon dioxide that it had contracted to sell to Cenovus Energy for use in enhanced oil recovery at a cost of $25 per tonne. In addition to the lost sales, this meant that SaskPower had been forced to pay Cenovus $12 million in penalties.[16] In June 2016, and to avoid paying a $91-million penalty, SaskPower renegotiated its CO2 supply contract with Cenovus. That renegotiation means annual revenues are reduced from $25-million to "$16-17-million". Over the 30-year project life this represents reduced revenue of $240-million to $270-million and will further weaken the project economics. [17]

Several major publications have noted what they deem poor economics of the project, among them The Economist,[18] The Financial Times,[19] The MIT Technology Review,[20] and The New York Times.[21][22] An April 2016 Parliamentary Budget Office report found that CCS at Boundary Dam doubles the price of electricity. [23]

Financial concerns appear to fall into three main areas:

negative earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization, in part due to the pioneering nature of the project;.[24]
the existence of cheaper alternatives, such as wind turbines, which urgently need to be developed.[11][25][26]
the potential for substantial losses for initial investors (Saskatchewan taxpayers and SaskPower ratepayers), in excess of $1-billion [11][27]
Among environmental concerns, critics note that while 90% of CO2 smokestack emissions are indeed captured, only a portion is actually stored.Almost half of captured emissions end up being released in the atmosphere by processing in the oil field and the capturing process.[28]

Among other concerns, critics point to the following:

The foremost goal of the CCS project is to keep the aging plant from becoming a stranded asset. "Unless SaskPower outfits the boilers of the Boundary Dam station with CCS, they have to shut down by 2020"[11] due to Canadian federal regulation.[29]
The unfair sharing of the costs, risks and benefits: Energy consumers are said to be saddled with a "very expensive carbon tax", while Saskatchewan's aging oil industry, namely Weyburn Consortium (headed by Cenovus Energy), which owns the Weyburn oil field receives a "backdoor subsidy." In essence, critics claim, the project is designed to sequester not carbon as much as tax dollars.[11][30]
All of these concerns are compounded by a lack of transparency: As of 2015 the project operators had not presented any financial or environmental performance numbers.

Capital cost[edit]
In February 2008 the Saskatchewan government announced that it would proceed with a 7-year reconstruction and repowering of Boundary Dam's Unit 3. The initial project cost was $C 1.24 billion[31] out of which $C 240-million was from the federal government.[10][32] Budget over-runs have led to the plant having a total cost of some $C 1.5 billion.[33][34]

A first 2015 financial analysis [35] by energy lobby group Saskatchewan Community Wind found that the project "generates losses in excess of [Canadian]$1-billion for electricity consumers of Saskatchewan: they will be paying for those losses through higher electricity prices for many years to come."[28] The report calculates the project reduces CO2 at a cost of $100/tonne and claims it is in effect "a very high carbon tax" levied on Saskatchewan households and other energy consumers.

Revenue[edit]
Other than the generation of electricity, the plant will have several by-products which will generate revenue.


Sample of solid carbon dioxide or "dry ice" pellets
Carbon dioxide[edit]
The facility will capture 90 percent of total carbon dioxide emissions from Unit 3[36] or one million tonnes annually.[37]

Most of the total annual carbon dioxide capture volume, at least for the first ten years of the project, is being sold to Alberta-based Cenovus Energy,[38] the operator of the Weyburn Oil Field.[39] SaskPower has not publicly disclosed the sale price but Minister Boyd has stated that it is "in the range of" $25 per tonne.[40] Annual revenue from carbon dioxide sales is thus estimated at $25 million. Cenovus Energy will use the carbon dioxide mainly for field injection work to increase crude oil production.

Sulphuric acid[edit]
Most of the sulphur emissions from the power station (predominantly sulphur dioxide) will be captured,[36] converted to sulphuric acid and sold. SaskPower sulphur dioxide emissions are approximately 5 tonnes per gigawatt hour of system generation.[41] Given annual electricity generation of 1,010 gigawatt hours, it follows that total annual sulphur capture will be 5,050 tonnes.

Fly ash[edit]
Fly ash, also known as flue ash, is one of the residues generated following the combustion of coal and lignite. In the past it was simply released into the atmosphere through the smoke stack but pollution control requirements have put an end to that practice. It is now captured by electrostatic precipitators and stored at the point of generation, placed in landfills or recycled - where it will typically replace Portland Cement in concrete production. Typical fly ash recovery rates, for Saskatchewan lignite-fired power stations, are 31 kilograms per megawatt hour.[42] Fly ash, depending on its use, can attract a range of prices. The best arises from concrete-quality ash which fetches $22–$49 per tonne.[43]

Expenses[edit]
There appear to be two main expense items: Operations and maintenance, and parasitic load. In the latter, carbon and sulphur dioxide amine-based capture units, such as the one at Boundary Dam, consume significant amounts of electricity and heat in operation and the largest single component is associated with solvent regeneration.[44] Significant electrical load is also used to run additional emission control components (e.g. NOx and Mercury capture) as well as associated pumps and other equipment.

[oneoff]

Bits and pieces that enter into the mix....including figures about Sask wind producing power 40% of time and solar power a measly 15% of potential uptime contribution. Just as I suspected. Anybody else shocked about putting many eggs in wind and solar basket. Here are directquotes from above article:

"In Saskatchewan, coal accounts for 44 per cent of our fuel and produces 70 per cent of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Wind and solar can only provide power part of the time because wind conditions have to be just right and the sun only shines part of the day. In Saskatchewan, wind turbines can produce power to meet our needs 40 per cent of the time, and our climate and geography make solar power, which could meet our needs up to 15 per cent of the time, an expensive option."

Also there is a quote about 50% of current electrical generating capacity in Sask coming from the three coal fired generating stations...some of which seem to have been commissioned a relatively short while ago at great cost and were expected to have decades more useful lifespans.

[oneoff]

There's more to the full economic equation than a LCOE. To be completely fair one would look at LACE calculations as well to get a slightly more accurate comparison amonst alternatives

" Levelized Avoided Cost of Electricity (LACE) as an additional indicator
Since projected utilization rates, the existing resource mix, and capacity values can all vary dramatically
across regions where new generation capacity may be needed, the direct comparison of LCOE across
technologies is often problematic and can be misleading as a method to assess the economic
competitiveness of various generation alternatives. Conceptually, a better assessment of economic
competitiveness can be gained through consideration of avoided cost, a measure of what it would cost
the grid to generate the electricity that is otherwise displaced by a new generation project, as well as its
levelized cost. Avoided cost, which provides a proxy measure for the annual economic value of a
candidate project, may be summed over its financial life and converted to a level annualized value that
is divided by average annual output of the project to develop its “levelized” avoided cost of electricity
(LACE).
5 The LACE value may then be compared with the LCOE value for the candidate project to provide
an indication of whether or not the project’s value exceeds its cost. If multiple technologies are available
to meet load, comparisons of each project’s LACE to its LCOE may be used to determine which project
provides the best net economic value. Estimating avoided costs is more complex than estimating
levelized costs because it requires information about how the system would have operated without the
option under evaluation. In this discussion, the calculation of avoided costs is based on the marginal
value of energy and capacity that would result from adding a unit of a given technology to the system as
it exists or is projected to exist at a specified future date and represents the potential value available to
the project owner from the project’s contribution to satisfying both energy and capacity requirements.
While the economic decisions for capacity additions in EIA’s long-term projections use neither LACE nor
LCOE concepts, the LACE and net value estimates presented in this report are generally more
representative of the factors contributing to the projections than looking at LCOE alone. However, both
the LACE and LCOE estimates are simplifications of modeled decisions, and may not fully capture all
decision factors or match modeled results.
Policy-related factors, such as environmental regulations and investment or production tax credits for
specified generation sources, can also impact investment decisions. The LCOE and LACE values
presented here are derived from the AEO 2016 Reference case, which includes the impacts of the Clean
5 Further discussion of the levelized avoided cost concept and its use in assessing economic competitiveness can be found in
this article: http://www.eia.gov/renewable/workshop/gencosts/.
U.S. Energy Information Administration | AEO2016 Levelized Costs 3
Power Plan (CPP), state-level renewable electricity requirements as of December 2015, and an extension
and phase-out of federal tax credits for renewable generation.
Finally, although levelized cost calculations are generally made using an assumed set of capital and
operating costs, the inherent uncertainty about future fuel prices and future policies may cause plant
owners or investors who finance plants to place a value on portfolio diversification. While EIA considers
many of the factors discussed in the previous paragraphs above in its analysis of technology choice in
the electricity sector in NEMS, not all of these concepts are included in LCOE or LACE calculations."

[Hamloc]

Muustardman you and Chuck2 quite frequently put up your costs for different sources of power. What you don't tell us is this and maybe it is included you don't specify. As stated in the Sask power article wind produces 40% of the time and solar 15% of the time, requiring the equivalent amount of natural gas or some other form of electrical generation back up for wind or solar or basically building twice the generation capacity for each kilowatt supplied by wind or solar. So Mustardman, while you and your socialist buddy Chuck2 constantly give us figures on electrical cost, please address this reality!!