Albertans deserve truth about electricity system options
Danielle Smith is wrong about renewable energy. Even worse, she’s not honest with Albertans about wind and solar. The best evidence for that argument comes from the non-profit that manages the Alberta power grid.
Two years ago, the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) modelled three pathways for the provincial electricity system to achieve net-zero emissions by 2035. The timelines are tight, the report concluded, but they are doable and affordable, contrary to Smith’s claims.
The Premier never publicly refers to AESO’s report, presumably because the province’s electricity system operator explains how federal clean electricity goals can be met at a reasonable cost, something she insists is technically impossible and horrendously expensive.
Smith claimed, for example, that net-zero by 2035 would cost as much as $400 billion. AESO pegs the bill at $44 billion to $52 billion, with 90 per cent of the cost borne by the private sector. Watch my interview (below) with Miranda Keating-Erickson, AESO’s VP markets, about the report.
The former talk radio host talks out of both sides of her mouth on this issue. On Twitter/X and in public comments, she bashes wind and solar as unreliable and expensive. Then last week she tried to sell the UCP government’s new rules for renewables development as a “clear and responsible path forward for renewable project development.”
Legal scholars disagreed. In an ABLAWG post, Nigel Bankes and Martin Olszynski called Alberta’s new policies “an effective and continuing de facto pause or moratorium” on wind and solar. Simon Dyer of Pembina Institute has estimated that those policies will bar 76 per cent of the province’s land from hosting renewables.
The AESO report is important because it presents Albertans with choices about how the provincial grid could or should change in the face of stricter federal climate policies and higher demand created by electrification of transportation (e.g. electric vehicles) and buildings (e.g. heat pumps).
AESO’s scenarios
In two of AESO’s three net-zero scenarios, wind and solar play a prominent role.
“The Dispatchable Dominant Scenario explores a world where very low or zero-carbon-emissions thermal units form the bulk of supply,” AESO’s report said. “The scenario is driven by the capital turnover of most unabated thermal assets into abated assets by the way of carbon capture technologies [CCS].”
This scenario is basically the status quo with 90 per cent (theoretically, at least) of greenhouse gas emissions captured and stored underground. `
“The First-Mover Advantage Scenario represents a future net-zero outcome that continues the development of significant volumes of wind and solar generation,” according to AESO. ”This scenario also relies on combined-cycle generation [gas] with CCS and hydrogen-fired simple-cycle generation to supply energy at times when renewables generation may be insufficient or unavailable…”
This middle-ground scenario is based upon assumptions that may not hold up. For example, solar will not be installed after 2030, but wind will, because the very low cost of solar will disincentivize investment. Furthermore, considerable Li-ion storage is assumed, but not other battery chemistries, storage technologies (e.g. compressed air), or grid-enhancing technologies.
“The Renewables and Storage Rush Scenario illustrates the continued development of significant amounts of intermittent wind and solar generation resources by 2035 with limited new low-emitting thermal generation,” AESO says. Energy storage plays an even greater role in this scenario because of the high adoption of renewables.
AESO modellers also considered longer-term technologies (hydroelectric, transmission inter-ties with other provinces, small modular nuclear reactors), but decided not to include them in the scenarios because they can’t be implemented soon enough to make a difference.
An interesting question for a future column is the extent to which AESO and the utilities have implemented new power electronics and digital control control technologies to modernize the grid. At 14 per cent renewables generation, Alberta should already be modernizing the grid to boost adoption of low-cost wind and solar while preparing for the two or three times more consumption required by electrification of the provincial economy by 2050 (watch interview with economist Chris Bataille below).
If Alberta is behind on grid modernization, and there is some evidence that it is, then this one area where additional study could influence which electricity scenario citizens might favour.
Change vs. stability
At its simplest, the renewables vs. gas debate is about change.
Wind and solar are not drop-in replacements – like coal, gas, hydro, or nuclear are – for dispatchable generation. Once more than a small percentage (Phases 1 and 2 in the IEA graphic) of wind and solar are operating, a power grid must be re-engineered (Phases 3 to 6) to accommodate the variability of renewables. This might include storage (most commonly batteries), market reform, inter-ties with other grids, demand response, and a host of other new technologies that are transforming the power sector around the world.
Gerhard Salge, chief technology officer for Hitachi Energy, described how power grids can be re-engineered to accommodate changes in electricity generation described by the IEA’s graphic.
“Customers must have a stable, reliable, and resilient power system,” Salge said. “That means…we need to substitute other new technologies, and those technologies are power electronics and digital control.”
Integrating these new technologies is often called “modernizing.” The Americans are busy upgrading their older grid, in part to lower emissions and also because they realize that competing against China and other clean energy players means electrifying the national economy. Over time, of course, but low-carbon electricity is increasingly seen as a competitive advantage as the global energy transition quickens.
Smith and her government see the world quite differently.
She has said publicly that Alberta “is a gas province” and gas will dominate power generation for decades to come. Generation may be decarbonized using carbon capture and storage or hydrogen, but the grid will be essentially the same.
I argued in a recent column that the UCP is the party of energy incumbents and that Smith is their champion. Incumbents like electric utilities, which are notorious for their cautious engineering culture, don’t like change. Especially change that they don’t control. From this point of view, the Alberta government is trying to shield electricity incumbents from disruptive change like that described by Salge and other experts (see below) I have interviewed.
Where to from here?
We have a pretty good idea of what Smith and the UCP envision for Alberta’s electricity grid. But what do Albertans want? Probably what they have always wanted: lights that go on when they flip a switch and affordable power bills.
What they are getting from their provincial government is a dishonest campaign to smear what are now the cheapest sources of generating electricity combined with dishonesty about the regulatory uncertainty created by new rules for renewables development.
What they need is an evidence-based public discussion about the AESO’s three scenarios.
Do Albertans prefer decarbonizing the status quo, a mix of gas with carbon capture and significant renewable energy, or a grid where wind and solar dominate? Are there other options not considered by AESO (advanced geothermal, for example)?
Has work to modernize the grid for intermittent generation even begun? If not, that would be a place to start improvements.
What is glaringly obvious after the 7-month moratorium and last Thursday’s announcement is that the current state of affairs isn’t serving the interests of Albertans. Whose interests are they serving?
It is Smith’s job is to answer that question. Some honesty while doing so would be appreciated.
Be the first to comment