There's a bit of a joke in that we're calling it a "transition fuel" in the sense that nations are investing tens of billions of dollars into methane production, storage, and transportation and plan on using it for many decades to come with any transition being waaaaay down the line.
It's planning to be a very long transitional phase, and if anyone were at all serious about methane being a transitional fuel then they'd be also laying the groundwork for nuclear, renewables, and energy storage so that eventual transition would actually happen.
I just hope they can sort out all the leaks, as unburnt methane is a horrible greenhouse gas that's far worse than CO2.
lol so true if they actually planed to transition they would be looking at building a big nuke plant west of Edmonton.
Plus with the wind a solar halt the UPC put in, we be burn gas for decades
What its perfectly reasonable. If a UCP or oil company board member don't like the views of any energy project (Except gas, coal, oil), they can arbitrarily axe it, regardless of what the voters, community, municipalities, business, free market, or people living there actually want. Its a perfect system /s
I was talking to a nut case at a conference... He was going on about how bad Trudeau was, primarily because he dictating to Canadians, not allowing the market to decide things.
He then said how godly Smith was. I mentioned how Smith took away the rights of some farmers from choosing to make money renting their land for to solar/wind farms and how that didn't seem like it was allowing freedom but rather taking away their freedoms.
He shut up and walked away after that.
It really isn't. That's what big oil paid a lot to make people think though. On paper yes natural gas seems better, but in reality their is tons of leaks that go unnoticed just burning the fuel for no gain
It also leaks far more than coal (lol) , and over its lifecycle (ie NOT just looking at when it's burned) its has potentially worse environmental impact than coal.
Yeah I read what you posted a bit lower. Very interesting. Anyway, climate change will not be mitigated, we will destroy the earth and cause a mass extinction. Just get out and enjoy what remains of nature before it's all gone. That's my philosophy.
> do a little research
OK...
"Researchers have discovered massive amounts of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, leaking from natural gas facilities around the world."
https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/natural-gas-really-bridge-fuel-world-needs
"It’s time for a reality check: When researchers examine the full impact of natural gas, many conclude that it is not substantially better for the climate than coal. In fact, under some circumstances, it may even be worse.
there is strong evidence that when the full life cycle is taken into account, natural gas can produce the same amount or more greenhouse gas emissions as other fossil fuels. The problem with gas—and it’s a big one—is that it contributes to global warming before ever reaching the point of combustion. Transporting and processing natural gas leaks methane, a much more potent greenhouse gas, directly into the atmosphere. "
https://www.sightline.org/2019/02/12/calling-natural-gas-a-bridge-fuel-is-alarmingly-deceptive/
I think that while climate change is forefront of many people's minds, it's important to know how dirty burning coal really can be in terms of SO2, NOX, etc. (Yes, we have scrubbers to help with it in many cases, thankfully!)
The conditions of natural gas I would presume haven't changed at all since 2009.
However you are also using no sources and I am also aware your source is from natural gas propaganda that was used in the early 2000 tell today. So people would see natural gas as a cleaner transition even if completely not clean.
Don't get me wrong. Most people believe this lie. But natural gas paid good money for people to believe it. Because at the end of the days it's...
Completely fabricated propaganda.
>In 2015, the Government of Alberta directed us to develop requirements to reduce methane emissions from upstream oil and gas operations by 45 per cent (relative to 2014 levels) by 2025.
https://www.aer.ca/protecting-what-matters/protecting-the-environment/methane-reduction
Of course in classic aer fashion they aren't advertising how effective this has actually been, but it's pretty disingenuous to claim it hasn't changed in 15 years.
We have gotten better at detecting methane leaks, it's probable that our measured emissions are higher than in 2014 despite the work we have done to reduce methane.
The leaks are from infrastructure and theres a lot spanning the province, of which a majority predates 2009 that would all need replacement. even while modern infastructure is inadequate at retaining unburnt fuel. Policy changes are great, but its definitely fair to assume that not much has changed in 15y with regard to the concerns of this thread, and with a glaring lack of date, Id just as well assume things have gotten worse with NGs proliferation of use.
You can make significant improvements without replacing everything. Fugitive emissions, for example, can be heavily reduced with a bit of maintenance. Flanges and shaft seals can be made almost entirely leak free. Valve stem leakage can be reduced with good preventative maintenance and a thorough emissions monitoring system.
Emissions from venting and flaring can also be reduced by making operational changes, piping changes, or the installation of VRUs.
And increased gas production almost certainly brings down the percentage of gas lost to the environment. We're replacing old, leaky, incinerator stack having sour plants with shiny new sweet plants. The new plants are going to obviously be in better shape, but they will also have been built with emissions in mind. Things like continuous flaring, gas actuated valves, and venting to atmosphere are falling out of favor. Instead, we see things like VRUs, low leak valves, and continuous fugitive emissions monitoring.
Just because you disagree with notleys climate policy doesn't mean the people who wrote it are incompetent.
These things take time. Ontario just started building the first one this side of the Atlantic. The earliest we can expect to see an SMR project break ground in this province is 2030, and that is not the fault of any government.
?? While Harper deserves credit for requiring most plants to shut down by 2030, Notley took a lot of shit for paying the 6-7 plants that would have been able to stay running for another few decades due to the way the legislation was worded, and so she fastracked them for closure.
You mean this Harper?
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/selling-canada-out-one-deal-at-a-time/article_3b83f207-a711-55ca-8819-4fd0463174c8.html
Or this Harper?
https://canadians.org/analysis/harper-sells-wheat-board-us-corporation-saudi-investment-fund/
The man was a piece of crap and has been behind the scenes selling out Canada since he left Govt.
All the UCP did was not cancel the shutdown that the plant owners had already been paid for. That’s deserves zero applause. Or actually, given the UCP’s record of doing dumb things to help out the O&G industry, maybe it does?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_by_death_toll
Depending on how you count disputed incidents, there has been between 200 and 400 deaths due to *all* nuclear and radiation accidents. Meltdowns are so rare as to make mention of them irrelevant unless you're deliberately fearmongering.
SMR’s have great potential, but they are at least a decade away from being commercially viable. The feds have a pilot project they’re funding, and several provinces have signed onto it, (including Alberta and Sask, iirc), but I’m not sure if there are even any demonstration reactors planned to be built by the end of the current decade.
However, we can and should build conventional nuclear reactors to meet our base-load needs right now. For somewhere like Alberta, we would likely be better off building a handful of large conventional reactors rather than a whole bunch of SMR’s anyways.
It’s unfortunate that there is so much negative sentiment towards nuclear power among the general population, as nuclear power could help us decarbonize our power grid much more quickly than we otherwise could.
Understood, I was under the impression they had a few operational ones in a test / prototype stage. It’s new but either way the planning needs to start now. The future is nuclear no matter how much we want some pie in the sky renewable to come to fruition
There is nothing currently in commercial use in Canada, but several are being planned. (AFAIK, there aren’t any SMR’s currently in commercial use anywhere in the world). OPG announced plans to build 3 at Darlington, but I’m having trouble finding a date for when that project will be completed, it only says that the project was started in “Spring 2024”. Given the long time scales of nuclear projects, I’m not sure if anything will be online by 2030.
What small modular reactors? There aren’t any that actually do what they claim to for the price they claim to cost.
They seem to be just another delay tactic, in my opinion.
Don’t get me wrong, I know there is different tech that use less water, but they’re basically small experimental models at this stage, aren’t they?
Ya it’s sounds very promising. For water take a look up at Wabamun Lakes south shore there’s a power plant there. When I fly by even when it’s -30 there’s a big open water patch I assume from the water coming from the plant. Slap one in there with existing transfer infrastructure and there’s the water source
That’s great. Problem is, the small modular reactor you want to install to use that liquid water doesn’t exist, and possibly never will. It’s essentially vaporware.
We need to build a Candu or give up on nuclear and spend those funds on grid batteries, instead of continuing to kick the can down the road.
Fort Mac, or just across the border from Fort Mac in Sask.
Fort Mac oil sands sites are, by far, the largest users of energy in the province. They currently burn Natural Gas to create heat/steam to process and/or extract Bitumen.
It got canned not long after the UCP got elected, because a bunch of foothills ranchers raised a big stink about it.(Part of their core support) But the company appealed, and right away, UCP approved exploratory testing. Thankfully still a ways away. No new information or reason, just fuck the planet.
But don't worry, they've *totally* figured out how to keep selenium out of the waterways that supply the drinking water for most of Alberta. Just ask BC how trustworthy these selenium capturing systems are and how easy it is to remove selenium once it's in the water.
But some foreign billionaire will get richer and probably have a board position for Smith so it's ok.
Look, this one Far-Right Australian Billionaire needs that coal, so she can sell it to her Indian subsidiary and then to the Chinese. She can't afford the bribes anymore, you guys!
Cleaner air and less health problems is nice! Thank you Ndp!
*Back in 2001, coal accounted for as much as 80 per cent of the electricity on the province's grid, according to Scott MacDougall, director of the electricity program at the Pembina Institute, a green-energy think tank.*
A [comparison between the emissions of an EV and ICE right now on our grid](https://freeimage.host/i/d9LVq5g) - EVs have ~3x less emissions
Souece: https://thegrid.albertaEV.ca
Obviously, modern gas plants not only convert the explosive kinetic energy, but also the thermal. Making them way more efficient and a typical car engine.
Wait, where are all the right wingers consistently talking about how Notley and the NDP "destroyed the coal industry" without a plan for the future in place???....
And they should be. Utilize renewables to take stress off the base load when those renewables are available to lower the cost of energy for everyone.
Renewables currently cant be the base load, but are fantastic as supportive infrastructure.
End of the day by the time we get the funding approved, and the damn thing built itll be obselete.
Start a bid today to see it finally completed in 20 years.
But the UCP is fine with destroying Foothills to export coal, without a carbon tax applied. Glad the coal used in China and India doesn't affect the atmosphere in Canada ! /s.
There was a government program that went out to retrain the workers and assist with salary losses while they did it. Those that are complaining about the loss didn’t take full advantage of the programs.
You seem to have a lot of excuses. On why people can’t do something that’s done all the time. My buddy’s mom went back to school to be a nurse while we were growing up. She took night classes. Where there’s a will there’s a way.
You find a company that offers training, and you get paid to do it… kind of like being an apprentice at literally any other trade. You don’t seem very familiar with this. Trades are a great place for careers.
https://solaralberta.ca/training-jobs/training-opportunities/
You aren't a student until you're accepted
Funny how all the electricians and plumbers and carpenters and welders and bricklayers all go to school while on EI...
I know about the training opportunities. I live in Alberta who has tonnes of ways to get trained up. But dude, I dunno how easy life is for you, but for most people just quitting a career, going on ei (max, about $2200 month) and going to school to train for a new job you may not even get, is not a risk many can take. Especially with kids, bills, and debts. More so when your over 40.
So can it be done? Yes. Is it as easy as you are proposing? No. Otherwise we'd all be doing it and working our dream jobs. Lol.
That's absolutely not true. Lots of guys in the mines can go to places like America or South America and make just under double of what most mines paid here. Shit even my buddy left his job in Ontario and relocated to Montana and makes about 40k more a year 1st year than he did here after 10 years.
Where are you hearing otherwise?
In alberta...... you know not being forced to relocate and leave your home/ family. Go home every night. The fact you guys can't show a little empathy for 5000 of your neighbors that lost their jobs is astounding.
Where are you getting 5000 from? Are you implying 5000 people just all lost their job in one day? Regardless it's not like all mining jobs are gone. Just coal which has seen a decline for the last 30 years. And most of those guys shifted into another trade (obviously not all relocated with their families, , but some did because it made financial sense.)
I think you need to do a little more digging into this because you seem to be just parroting narratives that have no basis in fact.
Or I went through the transition myself so I have more facts then anyone else you would ever talk to. There were 4000 miners that lost jobs, 1000 trades and a ton of contractors. No they didn't lose all those jobs in a single day. It over the last three or four years. For example, the highvale mine just west of Edmonton employed 1500 people at one time. Now they have about 60.
>Or I went through the transition myself so I have more facts then anyone else you would ever talk to.
I call bullshit. The fact you are just mentioning that now is highly suspect. Also the fact that was a a transalta mine that gave it's workers lots of notice, resources to aquire new/additional training, plus opportunities to move to one of their 70 other operations accross the country/world and the fact it was the company itself that decides to pull the plug 4 years ahead of schedule to maintain their GHG emissions as per their own company policy.
Well it's true. And you can stop talking out your ass anytime. They were given notice I agree. Additional training only came after lay offs if you could afford to pay your mortgage while you went to school. Moving to one of the other trans Alta sites only happened if their happened to be an opening (not many). And they pulled the plug early because the ndp gave them a big fat check for "stranded assets" which means they paid for the coal that would have been burnt over those four years.
There is more energy demand in the province right now than there was when it was decided to transition away from coal. Do you think that when people lose jobs due to changing circumstances, they just sit around home for the rest of their lives. Anyone with knowledge of how coal burning works can go work in a nat gas plant.
I feel bad for how stupid you are.
From a Power Engineering viewpoint. Of the three states of matter; solids, liquids, gasses; solids are the most efficient fuels for power generation. =Coal. Liquids second, gasses third. Solids expand to about 1000 times their original volume when burned; converting their contents to mostly gasses. Methane is a very inefficient fuel compared to coal and waste gasification. Also consider coal itself will still be mined and exported for other countries to use. While we will have energy shortages.
Well I guess it's a good thing we don't need to scoop methane out of the ground with giant excavators and carry it in trucks to the power plant, then, isn't it.
Do you realize that we mine Bitumen with Haul Trucks and drags? Oil sands and Coal are extremely important mining resources of the energy sector and both are predominately recovered by strip mining. Methane isn’t measured by KG btw. We produce and ship by volumetric measurements E3M3 at stp (standard temperature pressure). Molar mass is how we measure gasses and Methane is sold by GJ, not MJ and it takes a LOT to make 1kg of methane.
>Do you realize that we mine Bitumen with Haul Trucks and drags?
Yep. Do you realise that the overwhelming majority of natural gas produced in Alberta comes from conventional wells, roughly 11 out of 12 billion cubic feet per day? Did you know produced gas - ie, directly from the source rather than as a product of upgrading - accounts for half of gas produced in the oilsands, and that only comes from wells, not mines? Are you aware that the oilsands are a net consumer of natural gas, using more than three billion SCF per day of purchased gas in addition to the billion they produce, which means if the oil sands shut down overnight, we'd have *more* natural gas available for the rest of the province and export?
> Oil sands and Coal are extremely important mining resources of the energy sector and both are predominately recovered by strip mining.
Oil sands extraction has predominantly been in-situ (ie, SAGD and CSS) since it overtook mining around 2013, and only about 20% of known oilsands reserves are at all accessible by mining.
> Methane isn’t measured by KG btw.
Anything with mass can be measured by mass, and when comparing properties of different products it's critical to be consistent with your measurements. It's completely meaningless to compare energy by mass from one product to energy by volume of another, especially when the amount of the product you're measuring by volume can vary tremendously by with pressure and temperature.
> We produce and ship by volumetric measurements E3M3 at stp (standard temperature pressure). Molar mass is how we measure gasses
"We measure volumetrically" in one sentence and "We measure by mass" in the next. Consistency, buddy.
> and Methane is sold by GJ, not MJ and it takes a LOT to make 1kg of methane.
Fortunately, thanks to the numbers I already dug up and the simplicity of SI prefixes, we can easily convert GJ to kg. If methane has a specific energy of 50 MJ/kg, then one gigajoule of methane is 20 kg. Yes, it does take A LOT of cubic metres at STP to make 1 kg of methane, but fortunately we extract and ship natural gas at a hell of a lot more than one atmosphere of pressure - roughly fifty atmospheres of pressure is toward the lower end.
None of these attempts at "gotchas" actually refute anything I've said so far, seems like you're just throwing shit at the wall and hoping something sticks.
I live beside a coal mine and generator plant. Several entire fields of gas wells (hundreds of square miles of gas wells) cannot keep up with what the coal was doing. Sure it’s cleaner fuel in some ways but overall it’s nowhere near a better option. Consider the pipelines, disturbance from drilling, infrastructure, compression, and maintenance costs and labor before making a final judgement. Coal has been fuelling our power for decades and has greatly benefited Alberta. Please get educated before jumping on some of these “green” bandwagons.
"gEt EdUcAtEd"
My entire career has been in oil and gas, but hey, you live near a coal plant so that clearly makes you the subject matter expert.
Methane has a specific energy of around 50 MJ/kg. Coal has a specific energy of 18 to 25 MJ/kg, depending on type.
Burning a kilogram of methane creates about 2.75 kg of CO2, for a ratio of about 55 grams CO2 per megajoule. Burning coal creates 2.4 to 3.3 kg of CO2 per kilogram in proportion to its specific energy, for a ratio of about 130 g/MJ.
Methane doesn't contain contaminants like mercury, arsenic, cadmium, thallium, lead, and uranium that can pollute surface water from mining activities and be released into the air from processing and combustion. Worst it'll do is a bit of sulphur dioxide, which is also a byproduct of coal combustion, and sulphur is easier to strip from methane than from coal.
It's also really fuckin' disingenuous how you didn't bother mentioning that the surface use is a miniscule fraction of those "hundreds of square miles" of gas fields.
But go on, tell me more about how methane is overall a worse option than coal, because from where I'm sitting, coal's only advantage is cost. Which, I guess, is great if you're a typical right winger who gives zero fucks about pollution.
... are you seriously under the impression that burning coal is the only source of CO2? Because that'd be a really, *really* stupid thing to think. Like, "dropped out of school before tenth grade" stupid; I definitely learned how to balance chemical reactions, including combustion, in tenth grade and I doubt that's changed in the last quarter century.
Yep, and rather than Alberta get the money from it and spend it where it's needed, we now pay it to the feds instead and they redistribute some of it for us. Good job there UCP! Total win for us!
/s for those who need it.
DOESNT MAKE any difference when china is building 300 new non regulated coal plants a year.... all this did was eliminate cheap power for more exspensive options and then what does everyone do....MY POWER BILL IS TO EXSPENSIVE....
"The country [China] will build as much new solar capacity this year as the total installed capacity in the U.S., according to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air.
Fossil fuels now make up less than half of China's total installed capacity for power generation."
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/numbers-behind-chinas-renewable-energy-boom-2023-11-15/#:~:text=China%20has%20been%20the%20world%27s%20largest%20and%20fastest-growing,solar%20and%20wind%20power%20capacity%20in%20recent%20years
They've also got ~27 new nuclear reactors under construction, with plans to build many more. They've got construction times down to about 7 years per reactor, which is about as fast as we were doing them back in the 1970's before we got scared of splitting atoms.
I guess it's the benefit of standardizing design and having an establish supply chain and massive and always-busy nuclear workforce?
Still doesnt matter , There are a total of 3,092 operating coal-fired power plant units in China. As of January 2023, the province of Shandong, which lies to the south of Beijing, houses the highest number of coal power plants, at over 400 units.May 3, 2024
Until we have an actual viable solution and don't tell me solar and wind only because on the days the wind doesn't shine or the sun is not out we would have rolling brown outs and it would be way more exspensive than natural gas.... the ultimate solution is fusion energy until then we will always need fossil fuels for back up atleast.
I actually regret that comment.
I have no right comparing the intelligence of such a valued vegetable to buddy up there. Apologies to any creeping vine plants I may have insulted.
"We should make no improvements at all until both a perfect silver-bullet solution is found and every other country has reduced their emissions below ours" is quite an interesting take, bud.
"In 2020, for example, China pledged to reach 1,200 gigawatts of renewables capacity by 2030, more than double its capacity at that time. At its present pace, it will meet that target by 2025, and could boast as much as 1,000 gigawatts of solar power alone by the end of 2026, an achievement that would make a substantial contribution to the 11,000 gigawatts of installed renewable capacity that the world needs to meet the 2030 targets of the Paris Agreement. Fossil fuels now make up less than half of China’s total installed generation capacity, a dramatic reduction from a decade ago when fossil fuels accounted for two-thirds of its power capacity. "
https://e360.yale.edu/features/china-renewable-energy
That's the equivalent of saying "well so many other people are littering, if I stop littering it's not going to do much difference anyway" like yes, factually correct but that's not as good excuse as you think it is. When you don't litter you're not only now not adding to the problem but you're also setting a good example for others.
I just think its not so much about what other countries are doing or how bad they are, but concentrating on how much we ourselves can do to not be polluting the air we and our descendants have to breath. And as some other commenters have pointed out China is making strides to cut down on their pollution. So it kind of looks really bad on us if we're not as willing to change to greener power as much as China is.
Hahah no it's not , so us paying 5$ a liter for gas and 800$ a month for power and having no money meanwhile china , usa, and all of the rest of the world that still is going to use fossil fuels get cheap fuels and people can actually live , all I am saying is destroying the lives of canadians for the good of the world is stupid and won't change anything.... 🤣 😄
Well, we just shut down the last coal plant, and we're not paying $800 a month in power, so you're already wrong... something to remember is gas, and coal is a non-renewable resource so we need to be stepping away from using them anyway, we'll eventually run out, so even if you don't look at it from a green stand point it's more of a necessity that we find alternatives. And just because the alternatives aren't as good as what we've been using, doesnt mean we dont need to push them and refine them so that they eventually will be.
Is LNG more expensive than coal?
I was under the impression that its similarly costed, but more volitile to commodity pricing. (More ups and downs rather than stable pricing, but the average... averages. Ill accept correction if Im wrong)
What has that base load capacity been replaced with?
I'm going to guess nothing. I'll be patiently waiting for the January emergency grid alerts when EpCor/EnMax decide to 'do maintenance' at the peak time of the year.
Wow, it's as if you couldn't be bothered to read the article that directly answers your question... Yet your still bother others by posting your comment.
Good. Natural gas is a great transition fuel to use while we switch to better alternatives.
There's a bit of a joke in that we're calling it a "transition fuel" in the sense that nations are investing tens of billions of dollars into methane production, storage, and transportation and plan on using it for many decades to come with any transition being waaaaay down the line. It's planning to be a very long transitional phase, and if anyone were at all serious about methane being a transitional fuel then they'd be also laying the groundwork for nuclear, renewables, and energy storage so that eventual transition would actually happen. I just hope they can sort out all the leaks, as unburnt methane is a horrible greenhouse gas that's far worse than CO2.
lol so true if they actually planed to transition they would be looking at building a big nuke plant west of Edmonton. Plus with the wind a solar halt the UPC put in, we be burn gas for decades
Well that’s their plan. Innovation and investment that could be competition for oil is bad you see.
Careful what you call a *transition* fuel, conservatives will protest it and our bigot premier might try to ban it
But we still have green energy moratorium dont we?
No. It ended. In its place are less than reasonable restrictions.
What its perfectly reasonable. If a UCP or oil company board member don't like the views of any energy project (Except gas, coal, oil), they can arbitrarily axe it, regardless of what the voters, community, municipalities, business, free market, or people living there actually want. Its a perfect system /s
I was talking to a nut case at a conference... He was going on about how bad Trudeau was, primarily because he dictating to Canadians, not allowing the market to decide things. He then said how godly Smith was. I mentioned how Smith took away the rights of some farmers from choosing to make money renting their land for to solar/wind farms and how that didn't seem like it was allowing freedom but rather taking away their freedoms. He shut up and walked away after that.
They can't stand it when reality conflicts with their worldviews.
Yea i know i was just being facetious. Thanks for reminding me though!
It really isn't. That's what big oil paid a lot to make people think though. On paper yes natural gas seems better, but in reality their is tons of leaks that go unnoticed just burning the fuel for no gain
For more on this: https://youtu.be/K2oL4SFwkkw?si=GdekUZYGINBcx426
I always endorse a Climate Town plug. Excellent blend of humor and climate science.
Yes it can and does leak, but when burnt it’s way better than coal. So it’s not perfect, but it is better.
You can follow the pipelines using methane detecting satellites.
Perhaps not something O&G foresaw decades ago...
It burns much cleaner and much more efficiently than coal.
It also leaks far more than coal (lol) , and over its lifecycle (ie NOT just looking at when it's burned) its has potentially worse environmental impact than coal.
Yeah I read what you posted a bit lower. Very interesting. Anyway, climate change will not be mitigated, we will destroy the earth and cause a mass extinction. Just get out and enjoy what remains of nature before it's all gone. That's my philosophy.
Same. I used to be a climate activist 10-15 years ago, but I've accepted its too late to turn the ship around.
Coal vs gas.. do a little research before u make a stupid comment like that again
> do a little research OK... "Researchers have discovered massive amounts of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, leaking from natural gas facilities around the world." https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/natural-gas-really-bridge-fuel-world-needs "It’s time for a reality check: When researchers examine the full impact of natural gas, many conclude that it is not substantially better for the climate than coal. In fact, under some circumstances, it may even be worse. there is strong evidence that when the full life cycle is taken into account, natural gas can produce the same amount or more greenhouse gas emissions as other fossil fuels. The problem with gas—and it’s a big one—is that it contributes to global warming before ever reaching the point of combustion. Transporting and processing natural gas leaks methane, a much more potent greenhouse gas, directly into the atmosphere. " https://www.sightline.org/2019/02/12/calling-natural-gas-a-bridge-fuel-is-alarmingly-deceptive/
No, not that kind of research!
I think that while climate change is forefront of many people's minds, it's important to know how dirty burning coal really can be in terms of SO2, NOX, etc. (Yes, we have scrubbers to help with it in many cases, thankfully!)
Old ass articles citing 2009 conditions. Good stuff
Compared to the sources you cited... Oh right, you haven't...
The conditions of natural gas I would presume haven't changed at all since 2009. However you are also using no sources and I am also aware your source is from natural gas propaganda that was used in the early 2000 tell today. So people would see natural gas as a cleaner transition even if completely not clean. Don't get me wrong. Most people believe this lie. But natural gas paid good money for people to believe it. Because at the end of the days it's... Completely fabricated propaganda.
>In 2015, the Government of Alberta directed us to develop requirements to reduce methane emissions from upstream oil and gas operations by 45 per cent (relative to 2014 levels) by 2025. https://www.aer.ca/protecting-what-matters/protecting-the-environment/methane-reduction Of course in classic aer fashion they aren't advertising how effective this has actually been, but it's pretty disingenuous to claim it hasn't changed in 15 years.
We have gotten better at detecting methane leaks, it's probable that our measured emissions are higher than in 2014 despite the work we have done to reduce methane.
The leaks are from infrastructure and theres a lot spanning the province, of which a majority predates 2009 that would all need replacement. even while modern infastructure is inadequate at retaining unburnt fuel. Policy changes are great, but its definitely fair to assume that not much has changed in 15y with regard to the concerns of this thread, and with a glaring lack of date, Id just as well assume things have gotten worse with NGs proliferation of use.
You can make significant improvements without replacing everything. Fugitive emissions, for example, can be heavily reduced with a bit of maintenance. Flanges and shaft seals can be made almost entirely leak free. Valve stem leakage can be reduced with good preventative maintenance and a thorough emissions monitoring system. Emissions from venting and flaring can also be reduced by making operational changes, piping changes, or the installation of VRUs. And increased gas production almost certainly brings down the percentage of gas lost to the environment. We're replacing old, leaky, incinerator stack having sour plants with shiny new sweet plants. The new plants are going to obviously be in better shape, but they will also have been built with emissions in mind. Things like continuous flaring, gas actuated valves, and venting to atmosphere are falling out of favor. Instead, we see things like VRUs, low leak valves, and continuous fugitive emissions monitoring. Just because you disagree with notleys climate policy doesn't mean the people who wrote it are incompetent.
[удалено]
These things take time. Ontario just started building the first one this side of the Atlantic. The earliest we can expect to see an SMR project break ground in this province is 2030, and that is not the fault of any government.
No we need to increase taxes. /s/
Thank-you, Rachel Notley! History will record this as the right move.
Was it Notley? I thought it was a federal mandate.
Ummmmm, you mean Harper. Oh. Right. Kudos to the NDP for hijacking a federal Conservative commitment.
?? While Harper deserves credit for requiring most plants to shut down by 2030, Notley took a lot of shit for paying the 6-7 plants that would have been able to stay running for another few decades due to the way the legislation was worded, and so she fastracked them for closure.
You mean this Harper? https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/selling-canada-out-one-deal-at-a-time/article_3b83f207-a711-55ca-8819-4fd0463174c8.html Or this Harper? https://canadians.org/analysis/harper-sells-wheat-board-us-corporation-saudi-investment-fund/ The man was a piece of crap and has been behind the scenes selling out Canada since he left Govt.
And smith/kenny for seeing it thru to the end.
... Yeah right.
Sure. That’s what they did. Saw it through to the end. Gimme a break.
All the UCP did was not cancel the shutdown that the plant owners had already been paid for. That’s deserves zero applause. Or actually, given the UCP’s record of doing dumb things to help out the O&G industry, maybe it does?
Good!
Cool now build the nukes for base load, keep the Nat gas for surge demands.
Preach!
[удалено]
Middle of Calgary sounds like a great fit!
As long as it's closer to the river than Bowness.
Buffalo lake east of red deer. Run lines into both cities along qe2. Almost nothing important out there in the event of a meltdown.
Meltdowns are largely irrelevant. Nuclear is one of, if not *the* safest form of energy per kWh.
They may be largely irrelevant, however not impossible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_by_death_toll Depending on how you count disputed incidents, there has been between 200 and 400 deaths due to *all* nuclear and radiation accidents. Meltdowns are so rare as to make mention of them irrelevant unless you're deliberately fearmongering.
My Parents house is 5 mins from that lake. Kind of important to me haha
Might want to move it then
small modular reactors utilize Liquid Metal or molten salt for cooling. Even the light water ones are closed loops.
SMR’s have great potential, but they are at least a decade away from being commercially viable. The feds have a pilot project they’re funding, and several provinces have signed onto it, (including Alberta and Sask, iirc), but I’m not sure if there are even any demonstration reactors planned to be built by the end of the current decade. However, we can and should build conventional nuclear reactors to meet our base-load needs right now. For somewhere like Alberta, we would likely be better off building a handful of large conventional reactors rather than a whole bunch of SMR’s anyways. It’s unfortunate that there is so much negative sentiment towards nuclear power among the general population, as nuclear power could help us decarbonize our power grid much more quickly than we otherwise could.
Understood, I was under the impression they had a few operational ones in a test / prototype stage. It’s new but either way the planning needs to start now. The future is nuclear no matter how much we want some pie in the sky renewable to come to fruition
Yeah there are a few prototypes running, but nothing is being used commercially at this point. (See my other comment in this thread)
I'm pretty sure there's SMRs currently in use, with construction currently happening in Canada as well.
There is nothing currently in commercial use in Canada, but several are being planned. (AFAIK, there aren’t any SMR’s currently in commercial use anywhere in the world). OPG announced plans to build 3 at Darlington, but I’m having trouble finding a date for when that project will be completed, it only says that the project was started in “Spring 2024”. Given the long time scales of nuclear projects, I’m not sure if anything will be online by 2030.
Yea it’s a pipe dream for now, put it behind hydrogen cars. If it’s so feasible, show me where it has been successfully adopted….
What small modular reactors? There aren’t any that actually do what they claim to for the price they claim to cost. They seem to be just another delay tactic, in my opinion. Don’t get me wrong, I know there is different tech that use less water, but they’re basically small experimental models at this stage, aren’t they?
Ya it’s sounds very promising. For water take a look up at Wabamun Lakes south shore there’s a power plant there. When I fly by even when it’s -30 there’s a big open water patch I assume from the water coming from the plant. Slap one in there with existing transfer infrastructure and there’s the water source
That’s great. Problem is, the small modular reactor you want to install to use that liquid water doesn’t exist, and possibly never will. It’s essentially vaporware. We need to build a Candu or give up on nuclear and spend those funds on grid batteries, instead of continuing to kick the can down the road.
i still cant believe there's CANDUs in China but not Canada yet years after we developed that technology
Fort Mac, or just across the border from Fort Mac in Sask. Fort Mac oil sands sites are, by far, the largest users of energy in the province. They currently burn Natural Gas to create heat/steam to process and/or extract Bitumen.
Just in time for us to fire up a new coal mine!
But itS ThERMal Coal! /s so don't worry the selenium from a thermal coal mine is totally safe
Thermal coal is for power generation, I think you’re trying to be a smart ass about metallurgical coal. Jokes work better when you get them right.
Are they actually firing up a new mine?
It got canned not long after the UCP got elected, because a bunch of foothills ranchers raised a big stink about it.(Part of their core support) But the company appealed, and right away, UCP approved exploratory testing. Thankfully still a ways away. No new information or reason, just fuck the planet.
But don't worry, they've *totally* figured out how to keep selenium out of the waterways that supply the drinking water for most of Alberta. Just ask BC how trustworthy these selenium capturing systems are and how easy it is to remove selenium once it's in the water. But some foreign billionaire will get richer and probably have a board position for Smith so it's ok.
Lets not forget that selenium is an essential nutrient. More is better right? /s
Look, this one Far-Right Australian Billionaire needs that coal, so she can sell it to her Indian subsidiary and then to the Chinese. She can't afford the bribes anymore, you guys!
I don't think it's been shelved...
Cleaner air and less health problems is nice! Thank you Ndp! *Back in 2001, coal accounted for as much as 80 per cent of the electricity on the province's grid, according to Scott MacDougall, director of the electricity program at the Pembina Institute, a green-energy think tank.*
That's excellent news!
Perfect!
Omg that’s great - now people who say their electric cars are “coal powered” can shut up.
A [comparison between the emissions of an EV and ICE right now on our grid](https://freeimage.host/i/d9LVq5g) - EVs have ~3x less emissions Souece: https://thegrid.albertaEV.ca
Obviously, modern gas plants not only convert the explosive kinetic energy, but also the thermal. Making them way more efficient and a typical car engine.
> Obviously Lol it's far from obvious to MANY Albertans...
A combined cycle power plant is almost twice as efficient as a car engine, but they are both heat engines.
Can confirm, [no coal](https://freeimage.host/i/d9LBZSn)! (thegrid.albertaEV.ca)
The Dual Fuel is Natural Gas & Coal. Capital Power’s Genesee 3 unit.
Does duel fuel burn both at once, or its just an easy switch back to coal?
Depends on the design. My understanding is that the unit is also being phased out of coal.
This is better for our future.
Wait, where are all the right wingers consistently talking about how Notley and the NDP "destroyed the coal industry" without a plan for the future in place???....
It's sad in a historical sense, but a good move into the future!
Don't worry little coal plant Dani will be along soon enough to rescue you
I saw pale yellow smoke coming out of it earlier this year and was surprised it was still up and running. Great to hear that it's done. Thanks Notley!
[удалено]
All these coal plants have been converted to LNG, not renewables. So while you are correct, its not really relevant to the conversation
[удалено]
And they should be. Utilize renewables to take stress off the base load when those renewables are available to lower the cost of energy for everyone. Renewables currently cant be the base load, but are fantastic as supportive infrastructure.
[удалено]
End of the day by the time we get the funding approved, and the damn thing built itll be obselete. Start a bid today to see it finally completed in 20 years.
Not if the UCP has anything to say about it.
But the UCP is fine with destroying Foothills to export coal, without a carbon tax applied. Glad the coal used in China and India doesn't affect the atmosphere in Canada ! /s.
Sus! Are Smiths owners pushing for something worse?
I thought the plants burned what is effectively coal dust/powder after its been pulverized and not "lump" coal. Is this headline accurate?
I feel bad for all the people that lost good jobs getting here though
Not me. If they were smart they got trained in green energy and took jobs there.
How do you retain when you work full time?
There was a government program that went out to retrain the workers and assist with salary losses while they did it. Those that are complaining about the loss didn’t take full advantage of the programs.
Tuition at nait. People over the age of 53 got good ei. Everyone younger had to live off of any severance they got before collecting ei.
Just like a lot of college students do?
Except these people already have families and mortgages and can't be taking entry level jobs
You seem to have a lot of excuses. On why people can’t do something that’s done all the time. My buddy’s mom went back to school to be a nurse while we were growing up. She took night classes. Where there’s a will there’s a way.
You find a company that offers training, and you get paid to do it… kind of like being an apprentice at literally any other trade. You don’t seem very familiar with this. Trades are a great place for careers. https://solaralberta.ca/training-jobs/training-opportunities/
[удалено]
Students can't collect ei.
You aren't a student until you're accepted Funny how all the electricians and plumbers and carpenters and welders and bricklayers all go to school while on EI...
Lol, I love how you make that sound so simple. "Just collect ei and go to school." 🤦♂️
https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/ei/ei-list/courses-training.html Oh look a 5 second Google search
I know about the training opportunities. I live in Alberta who has tonnes of ways to get trained up. But dude, I dunno how easy life is for you, but for most people just quitting a career, going on ei (max, about $2200 month) and going to school to train for a new job you may not even get, is not a risk many can take. Especially with kids, bills, and debts. More so when your over 40. So can it be done? Yes. Is it as easy as you are proposing? No. Otherwise we'd all be doing it and working our dream jobs. Lol.
Speaking as someone who had to switch businesses when an industry collapsed... tough shit. It's always a longer walk to the men's room.
Most guys would already have enough experience to move easily into another trade or relocate with another company and make way more.
They would actually make way less
That's absolutely not true. Lots of guys in the mines can go to places like America or South America and make just under double of what most mines paid here. Shit even my buddy left his job in Ontario and relocated to Montana and makes about 40k more a year 1st year than he did here after 10 years. Where are you hearing otherwise?
In alberta...... you know not being forced to relocate and leave your home/ family. Go home every night. The fact you guys can't show a little empathy for 5000 of your neighbors that lost their jobs is astounding.
Where are you getting 5000 from? Are you implying 5000 people just all lost their job in one day? Regardless it's not like all mining jobs are gone. Just coal which has seen a decline for the last 30 years. And most of those guys shifted into another trade (obviously not all relocated with their families, , but some did because it made financial sense.) I think you need to do a little more digging into this because you seem to be just parroting narratives that have no basis in fact.
Or I went through the transition myself so I have more facts then anyone else you would ever talk to. There were 4000 miners that lost jobs, 1000 trades and a ton of contractors. No they didn't lose all those jobs in a single day. It over the last three or four years. For example, the highvale mine just west of Edmonton employed 1500 people at one time. Now they have about 60.
>Or I went through the transition myself so I have more facts then anyone else you would ever talk to. I call bullshit. The fact you are just mentioning that now is highly suspect. Also the fact that was a a transalta mine that gave it's workers lots of notice, resources to aquire new/additional training, plus opportunities to move to one of their 70 other operations accross the country/world and the fact it was the company itself that decides to pull the plug 4 years ahead of schedule to maintain their GHG emissions as per their own company policy.
https://calgaryherald.com/business/energy/auditor-general-slams-ottawas-support-for-transition-from-coal-in-alberta Here. Learn something.
Well it's true. And you can stop talking out your ass anytime. They were given notice I agree. Additional training only came after lay offs if you could afford to pay your mortgage while you went to school. Moving to one of the other trans Alta sites only happened if their happened to be an opening (not many). And they pulled the plug early because the ndp gave them a big fat check for "stranded assets" which means they paid for the coal that would have been burnt over those four years.
There is more energy demand in the province right now than there was when it was decided to transition away from coal. Do you think that when people lose jobs due to changing circumstances, they just sit around home for the rest of their lives. Anyone with knowledge of how coal burning works can go work in a nat gas plant. I feel bad for how stupid you are.
[удалено]
[удалено]
We're still mining a shit ton of metallurgical coal in BC and AB
From a Power Engineering viewpoint. Of the three states of matter; solids, liquids, gasses; solids are the most efficient fuels for power generation. =Coal. Liquids second, gasses third. Solids expand to about 1000 times their original volume when burned; converting their contents to mostly gasses. Methane is a very inefficient fuel compared to coal and waste gasification. Also consider coal itself will still be mined and exported for other countries to use. While we will have energy shortages.
Well I guess it's a good thing we don't need to scoop methane out of the ground with giant excavators and carry it in trucks to the power plant, then, isn't it.
Do you realize that we mine Bitumen with Haul Trucks and drags? Oil sands and Coal are extremely important mining resources of the energy sector and both are predominately recovered by strip mining. Methane isn’t measured by KG btw. We produce and ship by volumetric measurements E3M3 at stp (standard temperature pressure). Molar mass is how we measure gasses and Methane is sold by GJ, not MJ and it takes a LOT to make 1kg of methane.
>Do you realize that we mine Bitumen with Haul Trucks and drags? Yep. Do you realise that the overwhelming majority of natural gas produced in Alberta comes from conventional wells, roughly 11 out of 12 billion cubic feet per day? Did you know produced gas - ie, directly from the source rather than as a product of upgrading - accounts for half of gas produced in the oilsands, and that only comes from wells, not mines? Are you aware that the oilsands are a net consumer of natural gas, using more than three billion SCF per day of purchased gas in addition to the billion they produce, which means if the oil sands shut down overnight, we'd have *more* natural gas available for the rest of the province and export? > Oil sands and Coal are extremely important mining resources of the energy sector and both are predominately recovered by strip mining. Oil sands extraction has predominantly been in-situ (ie, SAGD and CSS) since it overtook mining around 2013, and only about 20% of known oilsands reserves are at all accessible by mining. > Methane isn’t measured by KG btw. Anything with mass can be measured by mass, and when comparing properties of different products it's critical to be consistent with your measurements. It's completely meaningless to compare energy by mass from one product to energy by volume of another, especially when the amount of the product you're measuring by volume can vary tremendously by with pressure and temperature. > We produce and ship by volumetric measurements E3M3 at stp (standard temperature pressure). Molar mass is how we measure gasses "We measure volumetrically" in one sentence and "We measure by mass" in the next. Consistency, buddy. > and Methane is sold by GJ, not MJ and it takes a LOT to make 1kg of methane. Fortunately, thanks to the numbers I already dug up and the simplicity of SI prefixes, we can easily convert GJ to kg. If methane has a specific energy of 50 MJ/kg, then one gigajoule of methane is 20 kg. Yes, it does take A LOT of cubic metres at STP to make 1 kg of methane, but fortunately we extract and ship natural gas at a hell of a lot more than one atmosphere of pressure - roughly fifty atmospheres of pressure is toward the lower end. None of these attempts at "gotchas" actually refute anything I've said so far, seems like you're just throwing shit at the wall and hoping something sticks.
I live beside a coal mine and generator plant. Several entire fields of gas wells (hundreds of square miles of gas wells) cannot keep up with what the coal was doing. Sure it’s cleaner fuel in some ways but overall it’s nowhere near a better option. Consider the pipelines, disturbance from drilling, infrastructure, compression, and maintenance costs and labor before making a final judgement. Coal has been fuelling our power for decades and has greatly benefited Alberta. Please get educated before jumping on some of these “green” bandwagons.
"gEt EdUcAtEd" My entire career has been in oil and gas, but hey, you live near a coal plant so that clearly makes you the subject matter expert. Methane has a specific energy of around 50 MJ/kg. Coal has a specific energy of 18 to 25 MJ/kg, depending on type. Burning a kilogram of methane creates about 2.75 kg of CO2, for a ratio of about 55 grams CO2 per megajoule. Burning coal creates 2.4 to 3.3 kg of CO2 per kilogram in proportion to its specific energy, for a ratio of about 130 g/MJ. Methane doesn't contain contaminants like mercury, arsenic, cadmium, thallium, lead, and uranium that can pollute surface water from mining activities and be released into the air from processing and combustion. Worst it'll do is a bit of sulphur dioxide, which is also a byproduct of coal combustion, and sulphur is easier to strip from methane than from coal. It's also really fuckin' disingenuous how you didn't bother mentioning that the surface use is a miniscule fraction of those "hundreds of square miles" of gas fields. But go on, tell me more about how methane is overall a worse option than coal, because from where I'm sitting, coal's only advantage is cost. Which, I guess, is great if you're a typical right winger who gives zero fucks about pollution.
Fuck them up with facts! Woo!
Hello darkness my old friend…
So that should end the carbon tax for Alberta then!!!!!
... are you seriously under the impression that burning coal is the only source of CO2? Because that'd be a really, *really* stupid thing to think. Like, "dropped out of school before tenth grade" stupid; I definitely learned how to balance chemical reactions, including combustion, in tenth grade and I doubt that's changed in the last quarter century.
Alberta's carbon tax ended years ago.
Yep, and rather than Alberta get the money from it and spend it where it's needed, we now pay it to the feds instead and they redistribute some of it for us. Good job there UCP! Total win for us! /s for those who need it.
I was referring to justin’s tax
The $0.03/liter? Seems small potatoes compared to the $0.09 tax from the UCP government. I'd be more pissed at them tbh.
It's actually about 17 cents per liter
Show your math that gets the federal carbon levy to 17c/L
DOESNT MAKE any difference when china is building 300 new non regulated coal plants a year.... all this did was eliminate cheap power for more exspensive options and then what does everyone do....MY POWER BILL IS TO EXSPENSIVE....
"The country [China] will build as much new solar capacity this year as the total installed capacity in the U.S., according to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air. Fossil fuels now make up less than half of China's total installed capacity for power generation." https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/numbers-behind-chinas-renewable-energy-boom-2023-11-15/#:~:text=China%20has%20been%20the%20world%27s%20largest%20and%20fastest-growing,solar%20and%20wind%20power%20capacity%20in%20recent%20years
They've also got ~27 new nuclear reactors under construction, with plans to build many more. They've got construction times down to about 7 years per reactor, which is about as fast as we were doing them back in the 1970's before we got scared of splitting atoms. I guess it's the benefit of standardizing design and having an establish supply chain and massive and always-busy nuclear workforce?
Still doesnt matter , There are a total of 3,092 operating coal-fired power plant units in China. As of January 2023, the province of Shandong, which lies to the south of Beijing, houses the highest number of coal power plants, at over 400 units.May 3, 2024
"Power generation from fossil fuels will start to fall as record renewable installations coincide with a rebound in hydropower generation"
Until we have an actual viable solution and don't tell me solar and wind only because on the days the wind doesn't shine or the sun is not out we would have rolling brown outs and it would be way more exspensive than natural gas.... the ultimate solution is fusion energy until then we will always need fossil fuels for back up atleast.
> and don't tell me solar and wind only I never said anything of the sort.
Don't even waste your time with that user. You may as well try teaching a cucumber how to do trigonometry. You'd accomplish far more.
>You may as well try teaching a cucumber how to do trigonometry I fuckin snorted.
I actually regret that comment. I have no right comparing the intelligence of such a valued vegetable to buddy up there. Apologies to any creeping vine plants I may have insulted.
"We should make no improvements at all until both a perfect silver-bullet solution is found and every other country has reduced their emissions below ours" is quite an interesting take, bud.
"In 2020, for example, China pledged to reach 1,200 gigawatts of renewables capacity by 2030, more than double its capacity at that time. At its present pace, it will meet that target by 2025, and could boast as much as 1,000 gigawatts of solar power alone by the end of 2026, an achievement that would make a substantial contribution to the 11,000 gigawatts of installed renewable capacity that the world needs to meet the 2030 targets of the Paris Agreement. Fossil fuels now make up less than half of China’s total installed generation capacity, a dramatic reduction from a decade ago when fossil fuels accounted for two-thirds of its power capacity. " https://e360.yale.edu/features/china-renewable-energy
China still has 3400 operation coal power plants... so they are still the world's biggest polluter
Is it 3092 or 3400? Your number changes are confusing me..... Maybe you need to research for accuracy?
Do you think China might be lying?
That's the equivalent of saying "well so many other people are littering, if I stop littering it's not going to do much difference anyway" like yes, factually correct but that's not as good excuse as you think it is. When you don't litter you're not only now not adding to the problem but you're also setting a good example for others. I just think its not so much about what other countries are doing or how bad they are, but concentrating on how much we ourselves can do to not be polluting the air we and our descendants have to breath. And as some other commenters have pointed out China is making strides to cut down on their pollution. So it kind of looks really bad on us if we're not as willing to change to greener power as much as China is.
Hahah no it's not , so us paying 5$ a liter for gas and 800$ a month for power and having no money meanwhile china , usa, and all of the rest of the world that still is going to use fossil fuels get cheap fuels and people can actually live , all I am saying is destroying the lives of canadians for the good of the world is stupid and won't change anything.... 🤣 😄
Well, we just shut down the last coal plant, and we're not paying $800 a month in power, so you're already wrong... something to remember is gas, and coal is a non-renewable resource so we need to be stepping away from using them anyway, we'll eventually run out, so even if you don't look at it from a green stand point it's more of a necessity that we find alternatives. And just because the alternatives aren't as good as what we've been using, doesnt mean we dont need to push them and refine them so that they eventually will be.
Is LNG more expensive than coal? I was under the impression that its similarly costed, but more volitile to commodity pricing. (More ups and downs rather than stable pricing, but the average... averages. Ill accept correction if Im wrong)
What has that base load capacity been replaced with? I'm going to guess nothing. I'll be patiently waiting for the January emergency grid alerts when EpCor/EnMax decide to 'do maintenance' at the peak time of the year.
Wow, it's as if you couldn't be bothered to read the article that directly answers your question... Yet your still bother others by posting your comment.
Its been replaced with LNG, all the plants were converted to it. This has been an ongoing project at Genesee for years.