You are on page 1of 16

Energy Lecture Notes Geo2143 There are two sides to energy one is the production and the other

other is the consumption (where does the energy produced go?) From a statistical perspective the production side is much easier to deal with Chart breaks down the approximate distribution of primary energy sources on a world scale. Still about 40% oil. Thats in all its forms diesel gasoline kerosene, refined petroleum products Second is natural gas which if present trends continue its going to increase its share primarily at the expense of coal you can expect that coal production is going to decline within the next 5-10 years at least in the developed world as natural gas takes its place. From a pollution perspective natural gas is preferable over Coal but from a geographic perspective coal is differently distributed across the world compared to other energy sources. North America for example is very well endowed with coal, but not so much with oil (Except shale oil) When you have energy produced you have energy consumed directly in the form its been produced or somehow converted chemically. Or theres an intermediate step (such is with the case of coal) where we substitute electrical generation as a convenient form of energy production, almost all of coal consumed is for electrical power consumption. Nuclear power is all electrical And you have water power End consumption -> transportation makes up the bulk, slightly more than industrial use in terms of where that energy goes. When you look at oil theres this giant arrow that goes right under transportation. Gasoline diesel etc. renewables such as ethanol might make a different but right now its not economically viable Natural gas at least in north America its split between industrial uses and residential. Big shift from natural gas power generation over the last couple of years, (this can be seen in the readings) Prof use to consult professionally on oil and gas Most of the energy that is produced is wasted. Not because people are deliberately wasting it but its not actually used for anything. (North Dakota natural gas Basin) This chart shows the energy mix between 1800 projected up until 2040. For most of the last 250 years, biomass was the major fuel source WOOD. The industrial revolution at least at the beginning was entirely fueled by wood then they discovered coal was a substitute. For most of the industrial revolution up until the mid 20th century coal was by far the majority source of energy. If you look at that places that industrialized early theres a pretty close relationship between industrialization and coal deposits, Brittan had substantial coal deposits, as did the US in the Appalachian range and in Wyoming.

For the last half of the 19th century first half of the 20th century coal was also the major fuel for military, almost all ships were based off of coal. Starting in the 2nd world war there was a shift from coal to petroleum based energy. Petroleum wasnt a major industry until the 1920s 1970s oil becomes the dominant form of energy. 5 years ago would talk about the concept of peak oil, idea that at some point we will max out the amount of oil we can produce and from there on there would be shortages. Big discussion topic for 10 years, dont hear about it anymore with the introduction of fracking. Which is injecting water and chemical into the ground causing the underlying rock to fracture where the oil then seeps out of. This is fairly recent technology on a commercial scale. Hasnt been put into play in the last very much until the last 5 or 6 years and then it exploded. Know about since the 1950s Monumental event has happened in the last couple of months in energy, something people though would never ever happen, US is seen to produce more energy than Russia. Russian Economy runs off of energy exports that and some of the raw materials are what they sell, shows what a big difference this technology has made. From a Canadian perspective this matters because Canada is going to become much less important to the US as a source of petroleum. Canadas major export partner for oil is the US. Far more than Saudi Arabia, which is what most people, think. All the controversy about the pipelines that may or may not get approved was based on the idea that the US was going to need a lot of oil coming out of Alberta. It appears that may not be the case. If youre Calgary what do you do? You build pipelines to the east and to the west, sell oil to china japan and Western Europe. These things were already underway; govt had already given approval for these kind of projects and is going to cause a real reorientation of the Canadian economy away from the US towards more diversified consumer base. Another thing to notice is that hydro has been pretty constant over the last 20 or 30 years. Most of the cites that are readily accessible have already been used. And since the accident in japan nuclear has kind of lost its shine. And then at the top you have other renewables, which includes about 10 different sources of alternative energy sources such as ethanol, solar. If you look at demand by fuel type oil is number one and is expected to stay number one. Now thats at a global scale. That doesnt mean thats whats going to happen in North America. Guess for America is that demand for oil will fall but demand for natural gas will increase. But on a global scale you still have the developing economies that are still quite dependent on oil. On the extreme you have Japan who has to import all of the oil it uses. Canada is in a good position that a surplus exists in both natural gas and oil that a substantial export economy exists. Coal is probably going to decline, most likely in the developed world, its unlikely that china is going to reduce its consumption of coal, not that it doesnt want to, its just readily available and has substantial coal deposits.

Nuclear theoretically is going to increase. Number of plants that are under construction, wind/solar / biofuels is expected to increase but compare to the size of the blocks to the combination of those 3 blocks. Very small growth in comparison to conventional energy sources. Even though you philosophically might be in favor of renewable resources, harsh reality is that theyre not there yet, efficiency of solar cells isnt there yet to be economically viable. Some of the most promising sources for biofuels are in the market place like algae. Hydro is basically used up. Geothermal, which is geographically bound. This graph breaks it down by major subsections of the world. Dont know all details of the chart but the Chinese section, very dark blueish area/magenta is estimated to continually grow up until 2035. Probably aware that a year ago china outstripped the US as the worlds major energy consumer. China is now using more energy than the US. Says nothing about levels of efficiency or anything like that. Two big players are china and the US; those two have the greatest influence on economic conditions and are the worlds largest consumers of energy. The USs portion will probably slightly decrease over time where china will most likely gradually increase over time. As China becomes more economically developed its consumption will in fact falls, which usually happens as a country becomes more economically developed. The estimates we are that we are going to see an increase in demand by about 30% by the year 2035 if you think gas is expensive now, you havent seen anything yet. As demand goes up price goes up. We can anticipate that energy prices at least for the foreseeable next couple of decades at least until we hit middle age is going to increase. Almost all this increase in demand is going to come from the developing world the developed economy is more or less been flat in terms of consumption for the last decade or so, Canada the US western Europe basically flat in terms of how much theyre consuming the only difference thats going on is the amount of renewable is slightly increasing over time. Most of the increase in the demand for oil, natural gas and all that stuff is going to come from places outside the developed world. See on the chart red line where china expects fairly substantial increases, if you take a look at almost any sector of energy youll find that china firms are heavily involved in acquiring and exploiting those resources in terms of oil theyre very busy trying to acquire reserves in Africa, natural gas not so much china has a very active nuclear program, very active solar and wind energy program and theyre building power plants like crazy. A new power plant comes online every day in china (Speculation). Majority is coal based, from a pollution perspective not very good. Developed world predictions are that the developed world may fall by 2%. the world demand is going to be for electricity. This where solar and wind may play a big role, because they do direct conversion. What most people dont realize is that solar and wind produce direct current not alternating which you get when you plug into the wall. Most electric gadgets take AC and turn it into DC for their use. China,

India and are going to count for the majority of the increase which is basically what you need to know, you dont need to know the %s or whatever. You will notice that for all the ones, for coal china is number one, for oil the same thing, gas the same thing, Nuclear hydro, other total by themselves will account for a major increase in the energy demanded. India not quite so much. Its growth rate hasnt matched chinas. could argue why that is? Its probably easier to grow a command economy than it is a democracy, dont face the kind of opposition in india as you would in china. Who are the Highest oil consumers per capita, Canada. Per capita basis Canada consumes quite a bit. Only place that matches that is Saudi Arabia, and theyre the world major producer. US arent far behind in terms of consumption and then you have everybody else who are about equal. North Americans are generally energy pigs as far as consumption goes. Thats a far statement but doesnt take into account the industrial mix which affects that. Need to take into account what the oil is used for. By consumption its basically cars. For Canada looking for total energy consumption the major source is petroleum. About a 1/3 of all energy consumed in Canada comes from Oil. Just as well that Canada is self sufficient, followed by natural gas. Both are found in Alberta. Alberta counts for about 98% of the oil reserves in Canada. Then you have hydro in eastern Canada. Some nuclear, coil might be important and then some renewables. You might notice that as we go through these charts that a common source for info is the US government. No one else produces this information except them. As you move up the level of industrialization youre going to require more energy. If youre going to have a steel industry or heavy machine industry youre going to use a lot of energy it takes a lot to produce steel, it takes a lot to mill steel. Once you get to the upper ends towards a more service based economy power consumption usually falls, not as much as you might think though. One of the major consumers electrical power in north America are server farms for the internet. They consume a vast amount of electricity. More so than most people realize. Another thing going on in the developed world is were getting more efficient at using energy as efficiency increases the total amount of consumption increases as well. China is the worlds largest consumer of energy, chinas economy is going 7,8,9% a year. US is become more efficient at using energy, theyre consumption goes down. At some point they cross and china becomes number one. If you do it on a per capita basis though, the US is far more efficient than China. China isnt the worse by any means; Russia is a real hog when it comes to power consumption. Interesting thing is that Saudi Arabia sold more oil to china than to the US. One of the things that happens with energy consumption and it varies with the kind of power you consume is that you get pollution. If you consider CO2 a pollutant then were all polluting. If you take a look at CO2 emissions you

can see china easily the worlds largest producer of emissions. This is not to indite china, its a factor that goes with the level of development of the country. Every developed economy went through a similar state at some point, china is probably now getting to a point where itll have to pay serious attention to the levels of pollution that are being produced which is exactly what happened to, Canada the US and western Europe. If you take a look at the relationship between GDP and energy consumption theyre highly correlated, one goes with the other the higher your level of production the more consumption of energy youre likely to experience. If youre talking about the top part of the chart up there , the developed world theyve been through the industrial process and now into the service economy and then to increasing efficiencies. Than the countries down there which havent gone through the developing process, as they move up that line their consumption is likely to increase. Wind and solar energy, how important is it? Chart shows cost comparisons of various productions of electricity based on source of where the initial energy comes from. Cheapest way to produce energy is natural gas, even more so than the chart states. Natural gas prices have fallen quite a bit in the last couple of months. Downside is that natural gas does release CO2. About half as much as coal does but it still produces quite a bit. Then you have hydro which has the advantage other then disrupting the physical environment doesnt produce any sort of pollution/gasses, then you have wind which would be 3rd. Gotta be careful when looking at stats about wind, and how much they cost very much depends on where the turbine happens to b. Offshore is a lot different than on-shore. Offshore is a lot more expensive because you dont have a stable base, you have to build it. Europe is generally offshore while NA is generally onshore. You have conventional coal, which is only slightly more expensive than wind. That is probably changing at least in the US where theres a lot of pressure by the environmental agencies making electrical production impossible. Geothermal uses steam which then produces electricy. One Caveat the more you can do it is restricted, hot material has to be close to the surface. When you drill the water pipe down you dont want to be drilling deep, its not an oil well. The downside is that geothermal plant would run forever, in about 20 years it uses the heat in the area and has to be moved. Advanced nuclear, one of the more expensive alternatives, and that number includes all the costs which would be very very large towards nuclear waste. Biomass, wood plant matter, very expensive. Two types of solar, particularly the thermal is easily the most expensive way of producing electricity however it can be done virtually anywhere with the sunshine. From a conventional cost perspective its natural gas hydro natural gas has another advantage other than cost, its much more flexible much easier to start up a gas turbine generator than a coal plant. You cant be shutting on and off a coal plant the way you can a gas one which one takes a couple of hours.

Production by subsidies for the US. Just like all modes of transportation all modes of energy get public subsidies to some degree, youre not paying for what it costs directly. As you can see looking at federal subsidies for electric power as dollars per MW. Solar is 770 dollars per MW subsidy, where hydro is 0.82cents, oil and gas is 0.64cents, puts it into perspective the economic viability of alternative sources, we need to get the efficiency levels up on solar if its ever going to be competitive in the market place. If you look at electrical generation which is primary source that all of us use on a daily basis, it is roughly split evenly between industrial use and residential commercial use. On that industrial side, its not that every industry requires a lot of electricity theres a tremendous difference within the industrial sector on how much power is needed. On the high end it would be aluminum smelting. There s an example where a plant on the ohio river whihch produces 9% of the total aluminum in the US says its going to shut down unless it gets a rebate on their power of 10$ per KW. Employs about 600 people. Find to find those systems where power is cheap, if you look at the location for server farms for Google, the farm tend to be where power is cheap. Usually hydro locations, quite a few in the Pacific Northwest. In terms of where electricity comes from again primarily coal, gas and some nuclear. Coal has the longest history of production. Ever since the beginning of the production of commercial electricity the plants have been mainly coal based, you can easily find coal plants from the 1920s that are still in use. Weve all seen powerlines but the power lines we normally see arent very efficient. They lose quite a bit of power while traveling. Conventional transmission lines carry AC current. From a something perspective can be shipped further and have less loss than direct current. Typically you cant build a transmission line in about 530 miles before youve lost so much power in the transmission that its not worth doing. How do you lose power? It basically heats up the wire, theres resistance in there. You can get around that by either using UHV (Ultra high voltage) lines, which carry power at a very high rate. Theres an example in Canada this stuff is really pioneered by the Russians when they built their hydro plants in Siberia, theyre 1000miles from any place that needs electricity on a big scale.its said that when they built these power lines in the 50s and 60s that there wasnt enough copper so they used steel and they would glow at night based on the amount of power they were carrying and how much they were losing. Downside is UHV lines are expensive. And theyre reasonably dangerous if you fell on one you would die. Most people dont know that the electrical grid in north America is linked ot the US system. There are two separate grids in Canada and 3 separate grids in the US. Canadas grid is roughly west east from Manitoba. The US has the western grid the eastern grid and this is the Texas grid down here. Massive power outage 10 years ago, basically effected the eastern interconnected grid. Not much connection between the western and eastern grid. The urcot

is pretty well connected with the western connection mainly into California a lot of scandals about over charging for electricity in California. Canadian grid looks pretty skeletal, mainly north south, top parts of the line generation facilities and then consumption along the bottom. The US system is quite a bit denser, given that the population is denser. Level of connectivity between eastern Canadian grid and US eastern grid is fairly extensive. Quebec sells a lot of power to new England its one of their major exports which is why parts of Ontario went out at the same time as parts of the Midwest and the US. Renewable resources: where does Canada get its electrical generation. 60% is hydroelectric. Conventional thermal coal natural gas nuclear. And then a tiny bit from wind and solar. Electrical net production has been steadily rising since 1980 and before that you would ge the odd dip but its generally been increasing over time. The last time they made this statistic was 2010 590,000,000kW, which is down from some of the previous years. Pretty high level of production There is a very strong geographic component to electrical generation in Canada. Quebec is almost entirely hydro. Ontario is or was primarily nuclear with some hydro. Places like Nova Scotia, which is entirely conventional, steam either coal or natural gas. Take a look at millions of tons of equipment for oil equivalency NTOE (been converted to equivalent in oil take a look at production by country, china is way out there, which you would expect Canada better than the US, substantial amount of that is being exported to the US. Places with the file Venezuela producing its own power Nuclear energy where does it fit or does it fit? Look at generation by fuel nuclear is 3rd or 4th as a source of electrical power. On a cost basis, nuclear isnt that competitive with conventional electrical production technology but has the advantage it is independent of most raw materials other than one the uranium roads have been located. Nuclear is an important component but it isnt the major component of world electrical generation. Its basically flat. And most of the increase is taken outside what most people would consider the developed world. Surprising based on the level of technology required for a nuclear power plant.

Lecture 2 Last week I was talking about renewable more or less, were starting off today with nuclear energy which you can consider either a renewable or non-renewable energy resource. Theres no shortage of uranium. In that sense its renewable, from a technical aspect theres a limited amount of uranium on earth. A lot in Canada. Nuclear energy seems to be losing its forward motion as a source of electrical generation, primarily because of the accidents in japan a couple of years ago. Germany for instance immediately took its Nuclear plants offline, If you looks at this diagram it shows a comparison of coal natural gas nuclear vs liquid vs renewables, you can see that I suggested last week that coal has been the dominant source of energy production on a world scale for 5 years. AS we move through time, coals contribution towards energy production in the developed world is probably going to decline. As we substitute natural gas and to a small degree renewables. Whats driving this more or less isnt cost, coal is probably still the most cost effective form of energy production but the concern associated with pollution when u burn coal. I will be putting up a diagram tomorrow that shows in theory how one can clean coal and make it acceptable for electrical production. I would suggest that you not memorize that chart but have an idea about how many steps there are and some of the byproduct that come out of the cleaning process for that. This particular diagram shows projections out to 2030 on a world scale. On a world scale, coal will still be fairly important Nuclear on the other hand is fairly stable, it grows up a little bit but it isnt really going to be a major contributor to generation growth on a world scale. Couple reasons for that is that the nuclear process is extremely ecologically complicated to do, second its really expensive as a start up and as continuing maintenance problem, third is there is a concern that the fuel in the reactor can be used to make nuclear weapons. And then of course there the concern of the left over fuel which is highly highly toxic, but what the fuck do we do with it? Right now its normally stored on site at the nuclear facilities but isnt a long term option. US basically puts it up a mountain where it has a major nuclear store site for spent fuel in the US. Most of the growth in nuclear generation is going to take place outside the developed economies, not many built in western Europe, none built in Germany france. Russians will still build On a world scale nuclear will be more important over time but most of that growth is going to be in the developing economies. This is a breakdown of countries along the bottom of how much of their total energy comes from nuclear. It runs all the way from france at 75% of their total to 1% for iran at the other end. There are a lot of countries that dont have nuclear at all that dont show up at all

If you take a comparison of the right hand side of this bit that shows the average of nuclear reactors vs the average age of on the left hand side. You can see that the developed world that have nuclear power for 40-50 years have really old plants. Plants arent designed to run forever and have a useful life of maybe 40 or 50 years if maintained well. You have a lot of the reactors in the developed world running near their age limit. At some point theyre going to have to be heavily modified ($$$) or shut down and some alternative source of energy is going to have to be found. In the US theres a couple reactors being built that may or may not come online over time the chinese are pretty active in building reactors and are in the process of exporting reactor technologies to other countries. Canada has its own kind of brand name for reactors. For the countries that plan on adding nuclear capabilities china counts for a bout 1/3 of the world total. China is so desperate for energy they are looking at every possible avenue to try and increase that. Heavy investment in wind, solar, money spent on the nuclear side. Russian are second largest players in that. Not sure why because they have considerable resources in oil, natural gas, hydro kind of inclined to thinking its an ideological preference. On the other side over here, we have all of this is suppose to be a pretty recent diagram, japan does still have some reactors but unless the climate changes im skeptical if theyll build more. US has a few, Russia and china are going to count for half of total world production Map showing planned and proposed systems to be operating by 2030. Thing that pops up there is china. 125 reatctos scheduled to come online vs US 30 and Canada 7. This is an area where china will be a very big player the total for the world will be about 430. Large portion is china. Some sporadic in eastern Europe. France is at the forefront of using nuclear technology in Europe about of their power comes from that. The problems that nuclear faces is that 1) its so expensive to do, whether or not more plants will be built is whether or not nuclear is going to be cost effective vs other forms of energy. With natural gas prices down below 4$ a Cubmic m its going to be difficult to build a plant that is going to be consistently profitable. And all we need is one more nuclear accident and thats probably the death for nuclear power. If we move to other forms of energy production this is going to take a long time. Billions of dollars are involved in building a plant, even if youre going to build a natural gas plant thats 100s of millions of dollars of money to build. China is in a rock and a hardplace in terms of power, so far it has resisted any attempts to get it to commit to carbon dioxide caps. Reasons for that is that china is still a developing economy and shouldnt be asked to do that. And It has a high reliance on coal and isnt in a position to be able to put something else into place.

One of the things that has happened in china is not in terms of power production plants on the coal side a lot of the coal being used is being produced illegally. And then the government after a few mining accidents thought it would be a good idea to shut down some of the midnight operators. This then meant china had to go abroad to get more of its coal then it had to previously which drives the price up making coal somewhat more expensive that it use to be. Its estimated that some of the plants in china run at a loss. You think someone would know exactly how many commericla nuclear reactors there are but there are varying numbers were just going to say its 439 +/- 10. At 2050 there may be over 1000 of these. France is expected to increase a bit, japan at 30%, which might fall, particularly if china builds a pipeline to the west coast and its able to ship oil and natural gas to Asia. Which should drive down the market price that the Japanese are facing. If that were to happen they would probably go more for natural gas for electrical production than they currently do. The problem they face is that they no reserves of their own at all. All oil and natural gas has to be imported. This is a pretty dated map, shows Canadas nuclear reactors and uranium mines. Theyre mostly in northern Saskatchewan. Almost all uranium production has been shut down as its not cost competitive. For alternate energy sources theres a lot of possible ones. Only going to talk about the more reasonable possible sources. Hydrogen fuel cells which use stores hydro and oxygen to produce power, so far their major use is for running cellphones or electronics. Biofuels basically creating diesel fuels out of various kinds of plants, mainly soybeans, but most plant matter can be converted. Its pretty expensive vs using real oil. Solar power, major disadvantage is that its expensive. Becoming cheaper over time. Theres a law thats been proposed with 20% increases in production. Wind which you can see in Ontario, disadvantage is that its intermittent, its expensive and its unsightly and its a meat grinder for birds. Then we have ethanol. Everyones favourite alternate energy source, meant to be the future. Basically alcohol blended in with gasoline, maxiumum allowable in the US is 15% ethanol 85% gasoline. Some states specialize in selling 10% ethanol and its cheaper. But its a false economy, because ethanol doesnt have the same energy punch as gasoline so when you buy it its cheaper but you end up using more of it, so it balances out. Ethanol is essentially produced by two countries, brazil which uses sugar cane and the US which uses primarily corn. Whether or not ethanol is a long term solution remains to be seen, its unclear from a technical perspective if its worth making. Not everyone agrees how much energy it takes to make ethanol. Some people say it takes more energy to make it than what you get from the ethanol. We have ocean bays like tidal stuff. Wave action etc.

Geothermal which is popular in places in Iceland. This is really geographically determined can only have it in places where the hot rocks are close enough to the surface that it doesnt take a lot to get down to them. In terms of total capacity of all kinds of renewables, this shows a map of where investment has been made and how much power is available. China is number one here with 103gW. Look up what a watt is and what a gig watt is and what a terawatt is and a kilowatt. Most power plants are rated in the mega watt range. A big one would be about 5 or 600 megawatt range US comes in second followed closely by Germany most of Germanys is solar while the US is more diversified across the renewable spectrum. There is some geothermal in cali and the west coast. Youll notice that there arent that many places that have made a significant commitment to renewable energy. None in Africa may change. From a development perspective solar would make sense. Everyone has their own. Solar is the one thats been increasing the most. Two countries pushing that, demand side is Germany. Theres an article that talks about the significant solar power on the European grid and why thats not a good thing. You still have to have a grid system regardless Wind is also growing fairly rapidly it is a little different that it has two geographic locations. Offshore expensive option Hydropower most of that has already been used. Big thing now is finding medium to small streams and putting small generators on those. Story in WSJ where a guy bought a stream and made about 12,000 a year selling power for the electric company. Solar geothermal ocean and wind all of these face a problem that didnt exist 5 years ago cheap natural gas. As fracking continues and natural gas prices dont increase this makes the renewable sector less attractive. Unless youre really committed to being an environmentalist the first consideration when looking at reduction of power is cost and reliability. Thats the problem with wind and solar that they are both intermitten in nature. This is a listing of the top 5 coutries by various kinds of energy sources. Renewable all the way from hydroelectric t geothermal. If you look at the top list renewable including hydro is china, biopower US with the Germany, geothermal US, hydropower china. Take away that there are three big players in renewable china US and Germany. Canada shows up on several of these in terms. Hydropower #4. But not a real big presence. Where is Canadas renewable energy located. Composite map of where most the power is located. Solar energy, basically the eastern great lakes and some on the southern west coast. Hydro Niagara falls area, quebec. Earth energy couple places in Manitoba couples places in BC. Bioenergy mostly in southern Ontario. Now the US is a bit different in the sense that there are government mandates for the use of biobased fuels in both electrical production as well

as used by vehicles. The fact that its available remains irrelevant to the government. They have told the gasoline producers they have to have so much ethanol of a type that doesnt commercially exist and theyre going to be fined because they dont put it in. but they cant put it in because no body makes it. Utilities get significant subsidies and tax credits for using renewable energy. Again this would be an indication that it cant stand by itself on a commercial basis. This shows 1) if you look at the box down here this is the section of total energy consumption the US based on tools. Little tiny box counting for 3% of the total. Out of that are wind, biomass, hydroelectric, even though solar and wind are becoming increasingly important theyre still a minor component of the total picture. For those people that think the near future holds a lot of renewable energy in site, theyre wrong. Its going to be decades before it becomes a major component at least in north America. If you look at where a lot of the energy in north America is produced. Theres no prize for guessing in Canada Alberta. If you go south you run into a band in the US with the same deal. All the way from North Dakota to texas. A lot of the additional oil coming out of the US from fracking is in North Dakota, if you want a job thats where you go. Now the problem is that a lot of the oil is at the top. Refining capability is at the bottom. You have to get the oil from the top to the bottom or somehow substitute oil from one place to another to do that. Whats happening in the US because people have been dragging their feet on building new pipelines theyve switched to rail. Substantial amount of crude oil thats going from north Dakota east to the east coast refineries, some that wouldve previous gone to texas will stay on the gulf coast and stay there. Cant over emphasize what a big deal this would make for the US and Canada. The US becomes self sufficient in oil and natural gas where is Canada going to sell its oil and natural gas. At least 1/3 of Canadian production in natural gas use to go to New England for heating. Thats gone they have enough domestic supply. The Canadian government and the Canadian energy industry is faced with a decision, what to do with all the stuff were producing in Alberta? The answer seems to be try and maintain the connections with the US market but build new pipelines running east and west. Build to the east to export to western Europe build to the west you can export to asia. In the long term thats not a bad strategy. If you look at it Canada has been overly dependent on the US for selling their oil and gas. Now this isnt a cheap option to build these pipelines assuming they can be built. Technologically no question they can be built, politically not true that you can build em. Problem the oil companies have is cultural, native populations extorted money from the oil companies to get permission to build a pipeline through. You will have some people that oppose it for enviro reasons some that oppose it for political reasons. If you look at ethanol which is essentially alcohol. There are two big players brazil and the US. US produces more than brazil does. Brazil is way more

Break

efficient at producing ethanol sugar cane is the best biomass to produce ethanol Corn doesnt even come close but the US has a lot of corn. So its a way to use that. That has certain roll on effects- if you take corn that used to be fed to live stock for meat production is now diverted to some other use, guess what happens to meat prices you have to spend more to get the corn to feed the meat and food prices go up Thats one of the major controversies with using ethanol is the tension between food production and ethanol production. You dont have infinite amounts of corn to do that. Every time you take corn from food, and use it for ethanol youre going to have an effect on the food market place. Biodiesel which is essentially diesel made from plant sources popular in Europe. If you look at the production figures considerably small. Wind pictures gives an example of the size of the turbines. Picture of guy standing on top them. On the right here we have an example of a wind farm, area with a lot of wind and they put up a lot of towers to harvest it Maps of wind patterns in the US over a period of time. Shows that there isnt a consistent flow over time. There does seem to be some south to north but in the middle one on the top, fairly low levels of wind for that time period. Illustrates the intermittent nature of wind. One of the things that has to be considered when building a wind tower is determining the optimal height to put the blade, and that depends on the place. Each place is going to have an optimum height to get the best wind influx. Look at map for NA you want the blue areas where wind speed in m/s. really on the coastal regions for the US. This is a wind potential map for Canada. Red is the best place to potentially put up your towers and that is the east coast, Hudson bay and west coast. On shore wind and great lakes. This is a mapof the existing installed capacity for wind in Canada and it is regionally concentrated, kind of what you expect, east coast, great lakes, and ones out in the prairies with no obstructions. No offshore wind towers for Canada yet. In terms of total capacity for wind, chinas number one, US is number 2, Germany # 3 and Canada comes in at 9. Total capacity for countries. The same trio again, china ,US and Germany already looked at a map for Canada and saw there were a couple of clusters where wind capacity was concentrated, essentially concentrated in areas suggested to have the best wind. US is a little different in that you dont find wind in the right places. As you can see on the map the two big areas for wind is Texas and California. Texas produces a lot of power to sell to California.

There are basically two kidns of wind sources base don physical location offshore and onshore Offshore happens in places where the population density is such that youre not in a position to put the wind power on land, Europe. What they do is move it offshore, put in a concrete pad. Build your tower and then run a marine quality cable from that to onshore Expensive. More so than doing it onshore. Maintenance costs and everything about it make it more expensive. Dont find too many of these in NA. not sufficient pop. Density to make it a problem. Solar power 3 basic ways you can use the sun. Photovoltaic cells flat panels that you see. Convert sunlight into electricity directly. Power that comes out its direct current. Not consistent with the power coming out of walls which is AC current. Then we have passive heating and cooling in daylight. Build a house with a sunroof architectural stuff to use the heat etc. Concentrated solar power taking a tank of water and concentrate the sunlight on it and get it hot. Hot enough makes steam to run a generator. 20s and 30s didnt have a hot water hearter had a tank painted black on the roof. Top countries for installed solar power Germany, Italy then japan. The positioning on the chart there with the blue depends on the year youre looking. Some years a lot will be installed some itll be none. This is what happened to Italy, skyrockets then falls. Germany flattens out, china goes straight up, hesitant to make generalization about country participation in this. Fair to say its the same major place, Germany, US , China, Japan. Solar farms, this one here Were going to go on break, stay in Canada, annual median daily global solar radiation sunshine. Southern Ontario is the florida of Canada with the most sunshine. Most of the installation would happen in south western Ontario. Thats what happens. Worlds second largest photovoltaic powerplant in sarnia. Produces around 80mW. 1.3 billion panels. Average power station made by coal produces 600 or 700 mw. About a 10th of the size of the typical coal plant. Swanson effect. Which says the price of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells per watt tends to drop 20% as you double production. Which means form the future we can expect cells to get cheaper and cheaper Wind and solar without subsidies are too expensive to use, unless youre in somewhere where you dont have an option if theyre going to compete theyre going to have to be sold at a lower price. Prices have been falling over the past 10 years or so. This decline in cost has basically been due to chinese over production to the extent where it has driven much of the competition in terms of the production of solar panels. Recently the European union and china signed an agreement that provides a floor for the pricing of these cells so the Chinese firms cant come and undercut on the price. You can see the price has been falling pretty quick, red line which is production explain why some alternative energy producers in the US didnt fair so well. Even

though they were subsidized aswell. Wasnt enough to offset the flood in the world market of cheap cells from china, Geothermal, build platforms, drill pipe down to hot rocks, pump water down to rocks, steam , goes to generator and you get electrical power. Cant be done everywhere geology needs to be right. They have limited life, 30-40 years typically. Has to be moved after that Where can you do it in Canada? East coast and west coast. West coast more so with the geography. On a world scale the US has the highest concentration in California and Nevada. Canada has two small plants in cape Bretton and one in BC. Although the heating is free its offset by the construction costs associated with putting the thing into work. Although the heating is free, its offset by the construction costs. No environmental problems except for the steam. Ever go to Iceland go to the Iceland blue lagoon which is the run off water from their large geothermal plant. Iceland is entirely geothermal. Hydrogen is the universes 3rd most abundant element on earth. Most of the hydrogen on earth is associated with water. When they use hydrogen generally its produced by burning hydrogen. Reason its not used is that right now its more expensive to produce it than it is to produce other fuels. Another possibility is that theyre experimenting using bacteria that feed on waste water that produces hydrogen as a by product. Fuel cells which so far seem to generate power for small electronics. We do not yet have commercial production of this technology, there are demo stations running it but its not in a stage where its commercially viable. Algae advantage is that it grows in water, can be done vertically, grows in salt water and waste water and grows 40x faster than other plants. Chart shows tree that produces nuts costs per gallon of producing aviation fuel is 20$ per gallon biosource 3 or 7$ only costs 0.90cents to use crude. (All are high octane) Ranking of various kinds of crops in terms of how fuel efficient they would be. One advantage is that algae unless youre a fish isnt a food source. Worst thing you can use to make fuel is wheat, second worst is corn, oil palm, sugar cane, and sugar beets. Algae by far the best source if we can figure out how to do it so that its efficient. A lot of water a lot of pods. Cartoon is misleading Ethanol when people talk about alternative fuel theyre usually talking about this. Two major producers are the US and Brazil. Brazil is way more efficient than US production. Essentially running a moonshine but the next generation is going to be done though celluslistic something using catlysts and enzymes to speed up the process. In theory you can use any kind of vegetable or organic matter. There have been a couple plants on a commercial scale to do this, but theyre prob all out of business For your information diagram on how to make ethanol out of corn. Ethanol production US 60% brazil 20% china with 2.4% most of the US production is legally mandated. Required that the oil companies put a certain

amount of ethanol in their production. Since the US is such an inefficient producer likely that it would a lot less produced. Over time the US has increased production Brazil has decreased production. Part of the problem was that the US for a while had a tariff on the imports of ethanol which has since been removed. If you look at world production of biodieself and ethanol both on a YoY basis have declined. Map of the biodiesel plants and ethanol plants in Canada as you can see south western Ontario has quite a few. The biodiesel produced in Canada comes from a kind of lard. There arent that many locations in the country where its created. Maps is like 2 years old so some of the ones under construction might not have been actually finished. Great thing about brazils facility is that 2/3 of their sugar mills can make sugar or ethanol and they can switch quickly. Ethanol plants in the US only produce ethanol. All biofuels have subsidies and its hard to keep up on the levels of subsidies as it changes all the time. $ per litre Canada provides about 0.40$ per litre for the support for the production of ethanol 0.20$ per litre for biodiesel. US a little less subsidy for ethanol but a little more for biodiesel. Biodiesel isnt an important alternate fuel outside of Europe. Other side we have cost production and the benefits of biofuel production and ethanol red is how much it costs and green is the reduction in commissions. Corn makes out worse here as its the worse in producing, sugar cane is the greatest reduction in commissions and lowest cost. Corn is shit at making ethanol niggas. Only thing to ask is that which of the following five fuels isnt bio based ethanol, biodiesel, gasoline, ethanol, dont need to know in detail be familiar with names and various types. Why dont we just go to ethanol? Ethanol has some major problems with it, some studies say it takes more energy to produce ethanol than you actually get out of it, negative system. Studies may be suspect. If the company produces ethanol studies say ethanol is great, companies in competition say ethanol is bad. Very unobjective Competition between using raw materials as food and fuel. Not enough land in the US to do it. Couldnt produce 10-20% of energy needs if you used all the farm land in the US. Moving it around is difficult. Ethanol likes to mix with water so you cant used a regular existing pipeline to move ethanol around it has too much water vapour. If youre going to do it youll need a much more expensive pipeline. Pipelines are all in the wrong places. Pipelines laid after WWII run east west while ethanol is produced in the upper Midwest, which hasnt been known for energy production so rail would have to be used Dont produce enough to justify creation of a pipeline. We move it now using train or barge.